Conciseness, please

[Conal Elliott]

Hi Craig.

FYI, I lost interest after the first paragraph and skimmed the rest.  I've missed quite a lot of what you've said lately, because I didn't want to wade through long passages.  The same is true for me of some of Niklas's notes as well.

Request to the group: take more time to write shorter notes.  Go ahead and write a stream-of-consciousness draft to help you figure out what you really want to say, and then trim way down to the essence, before sending.  Or, as I've heard it put, "blather, condense, repeat" -- before sending.

Thanks,  - Conal

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:

Hi Conal, this is Craig,

I appreciate your wanting to stay "on topic". I went to the
description of the group. From that and the title, I am guessing that
is what you are wanting more direct connection to NVC and ways a
discussion on the topic of abortion could be a part of that evolution.
Perhaps you are reacting to people limiting their posts to explaining
their position or perspective. The statements of perspective on
abortion have been important to me, because they allow my heart and
consciousness to expand to incorporate a wider perspective than I had
before. Needs for growth and connection are met. In terms of my core
value of inclusion, I am seeing how that might work for someone who is
a absolute proponent of abortion under any circumstances as an
absolute right. Even in my switch from being essentially anti-abortion
to one that is essentially pr0choice. I am getting a greater sense of
inclusion and possibility.

Abortion is an issue of enormous pain and pain bodies for me. My main
pain at the moment is that there is such a huge gap between most of
those who are on one side or the other. It is almost always expressed
in my experience by shouting and recrimination from both sides.
Murderer. Biggot. Anti-woman. Anti-baby, etc. Even the
conceptualization that there are sides causes my heart to ache. For me
the pain is that for so many it is an area of huge judgment of the
other. Even in our discussion here there is a subtle and not so subtle
judgment of the side that most call anti-abortion.

What I am missing in the statement of positions is a sense of empathy
for the "other" side. I have learned something about the side that
favors non-judgment in terms of abortion. I have increased my skills
of empathy and self-empathy as I read and react to different
statements of perspective. I have not experienced much empathy or
perspective for the totality of the experience of the side that favors
much more consideration of the unborn one, except for the post from
Niklas which was as some have pointed out more philosophical than
experiential. I don't want this to be taken as a knock on Niklas. I
have adequately expressed my appreciation for him elsewhere. Actually,
the expansion of my mind is an important part of my experience on
boards like this. The expansion of my heart usually happens in my fact-
to-face encounters with people in my life be they in my home, my
circle of friends, my empathy buddies, my practice groups, my
trainings. I have had a lot of fun with the topic of making quick, in
passing connection which is a thread that Gedding started and I
restarted. That has come alive for me. But maybe I am straying off
topic. My mind, heart, and soul do not easily divide the world into
clear edged topics. Anyway, I regret that I do not grow as much in
empathy with those who trigger me. That is a big cutting edge for me.
It is one I invite anyone who shares that cutting edge to explore
further on the abortion topic.

For me, something that would be more in the spirit of the direct
application of NVC would be for us to expand our empathy skills to
incorporate the "other" side of the abortion question than the one we
hold dear. This would be an NVC'ish an exercise in increasing our
depth of empathy under the internal fire of judgment jackals. I would
also think that this could be an opportunity to deepen our self-
empathy skills inquiring into what needs and core values are behind
our position and how we can connect from those needs to the needs of
those of the other side. I would imagine that it would be something
like written role play exchanges where someone plays a person who
holds a perspective on abortion that you disagree with or even find
repugnant. This would, I would hope, lead to an internal space of less
judgment and more connection with the "other" person. It would also be
a model for me on how I can connect with people who hold either
position.

Conal, you asked for us to move the abortion issue related to NVC to
another thread. I guess that this is it. Your challenged us to express
briefly how the thread relates to NVC evolving. I am afraid I have
again not met your request for brevity, but I hope I have responded
with a way that NVC and abortion can be a huge part of the evolution
of NVC for us.

I am interested in whether this shift of the abortion topic has any
interest for you Conal or for others in this group.

All the best, Craig.

P.S. I see that Angela has moved the topic of the relevanc of an
abortion discussion to another thread. I was torn, especially in light
of recent feedback, to reply on Angela's thread, but decided to reply
here. Sorry if that stubs anyone's toes.

On Sep 30, 10:56 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> I want this list to stay on topic, and I see this discussion as mostly off
> topic.
>
> Before any more of it continues, I'd like either (a) to have the abortion
> discussion moved off list or (b) have someone clearly and tersely explain to
> me how it is on topic.
>
> Okey dokey?    - Conal
>
>
>

> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Susan L <su...@propeace.net> wrote:
>
> > > I hear you saying that you really love the ...lack of drama [when mothers
> > are not] ...pressured to raise a kid they don't want to raise.
>
> > I butchered your sentence because I HAVE seen documentation about such
> > cases among non-western human mothers, too.  I remember reading a
> > particular anthropological report where the mother would break the
> > newborn's neck by standing on a branch as it lay on the ground if
> > there was drought, famine, or disease, if it was born with a defect
> > for which there were no available compensatory strategies, if it was
> > born premature and too weak to suckle, or if she were still nursing a
> > toddler.  She would then dispose of the body and return to the village
> > and receive the support of the other women in her grief, and the
> > entire community would treat her with great gentleness.
>
> > And yes, I really love it when every child knows while growing up that
> > (s)he is precious.
>
> > > I'm guessing that you also feel great sadness around the complications,
> > judgements and drama you
> > > see around a (human) woman choosing to end a pregnancy....
>
> > Yes, and I also feel resentful about the "pro-choice" frame that is
> > used to describe such a difficult, tragic decision.  To me, "choice"
> > sounds so frivolous - like one is selecting from among equally
> > desirable alternatives, like which top to wear or what to order for
> > dinner at a restaurant.  At least in western culture, I would rather
> > talk about such a weighty decision in terms of two needs:  self-
> > determination and privacy.  In the case of mothers in the culture I
> > described above, such drama is not found decision because cultural
> > norms are in place to meet those needs, and the mother can get her
> > deeper needs met for caring and support.
>
> > What I still don't understand is why moral judgment is even part of
> > the picture.  Because there's a human life involved?  I would argue
> > that there is more than one human life involved, and that considering
> > only the needs (or rights) of one of them is bound to result in a
> > poorly-informed decision.
>
> > And I don't think that the scientific question of when life begins has
> > any bearing on the issue.  When life begins is a cultural question,
> > not a scientific one.  There are also cultures in which life begins at
> > the child's naming ceremony - others in which the eruption of the
> > first tooth marks the beginning of life - others in which life begins
> > at weaning.  So let's get off our self-righteous, scientific high
> > horse and make this decision easier for women by making our tools

> > (both medical and humanitarian) available to them in their need.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Craig Sones Cornell]

Conal, this is Craig:

Part of me appreciates your request for conciseness. Given all that I
want to say and how often I want to say it, I am not sure I can comply
as easily as I would like. For me to write less takes a great deal of
discipline and work that I am not sure I want to put into my posts
here. It is something that I would reserve for more polished writing
for publication. I am experiencing needs for fun and ease which are
threatened by shortening my posts too much. I guess I am experiencing
it like a rule or a form that I am champing at a bit at rather than a
request, which I believe you are intending. But then what I am
stimulated about is on me. I am triggered a bit by "wade" but again
that is about me. It seems like there might be a less loaded word.
Anyway, I know I tend to write "too much". I think maybe a strategy
would be for me to break it down into smaller chunks. It might obviate
some of the hurt and pain that has come alive of late. I commit right
now to ponder how and whether I will shorten posts. Pondering is not
exactly doable, but it is the best I can do with my wife reminding me
that it is lunch time in the background. Do you have any strategies
that you use or would suggest to reach your admirable conciseness?

I differ in my response to Niklas's long posts. They are like a balm
in Gilead to me. They stimulate all kinds of connection, aha's, and
wonderment. Not just the two take offs from my posts, but earlier
posts in Sex and Evolution and elsewhere that had such deep and
profound meaning for me. I am not sure I am a little boy cocking my
head in curiosity as Niklas described it, but I am definitely a man
transported to places in my consciousness where I like to go to and
savor. Mmm, Mmm, good. Maybe Niklas and I and others who like like it
long and slow can identify when a long post is coming. Or mayben we
could write a precise at the start and then others can decide if they
want to wade in deeper. (Oops and I said I was triggered by wade. )
Or maybe we could start some off post exchanges, but Lea and Gedding
were such a profound part of the Sex and Evolution thread for me.

I would love to hear reactions and strategies from others.

All the best, and hoping for more concision, less prolixity, Craig.


Shortly, Craig.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Conal Elliott]

Hi Craig,

Do you have any strategies that you use or would suggest to reach your admirable conciseness?\

Yes: write stream-of-consciousness in your personal journal.  In the process, distill the essence of what you're trying to say.  Only then begin writing for group consumption and aim for getting the essence across in as few words as possible.

It occurs to me now that I think and write professionally, often working with word limits, and that you might not have as much practice as I in conciseness.  So another suggestion: get help.  Take a class, find a mentor, find an online group that reviews and helps improve each other's writing -- especially clarity & conciseness.

Alternatively, forget about conciseness and find a different forum that doesn't ask so much discipline and work.  nvc-evolves can't be the only game in town for exchanging ideas.

Do these suggestions help?

- Conal

2008/10/1 Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com>

[Craig Sones Cornell]

On Oct 1, 1:36 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> Hi Craig,...
>
> read more >>

> > > > > > I butchered your- Hide quoted text -

[Craig Sones Cornell]

On Oct 1, 1:36 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> Hi Craig,...
>
> read more >>

>
> Do you have any strategies that you use or would suggest to reach your
>
> > admirable conciseness?\
>
> Yes: write stream-of-consciousness in your personal journal. In the
> process, distill the essence of what you're trying to say. Only then begin
> writing for group consumption and aim for getting the essence across in as
> few words as possible.

I intend to write more concisely. And when a long post hits me, I will
write a summary at the beginning. Then you and others can read the
summary and decide if you want to go further. Or, of course, you can
just skip the whole thing and those who want to can move with me
meandering through feelings, needs, thoughts and the like. In my
experience of NVC trainings and the like, the pace is maddeningly slow
as we sort out everyone's logistical needs. Needs living and
consciousness as one dear friend put it is "messy". I will try to get
to the more essential expression, but there is a certain terror
bubbling up that I will revert to more jackalish content that will
really piss you and others off. I want connection and clarity together
as my primary values. For a Google forum, conciseness is not a very
high value to me. No ease and fun. Do you or anyone object to my
proposed strategy of summary/body when I am moved to make a longer
post?

> It occurs to me now that I think and write professionally, often working
> with word limits, and that you might not have as much practice as I in
> conciseness. So another suggestion: get help. Take a class, find a mentor,
> find an online group that reviews and helps improve each other's writing --
> especially clarity & conciseness.

I am not sure how one thinks professionally, but your concision seems
to be a reflection of your professional writing. I appreciate it.

Now we have added clarity to my writing faults as you experience them.
I am not sure that is a fair evaluation. I think that my expression
has been TOO CLEAR and direct, if too wordy. I am a member of a
writing group, though more focused fiction and screen plays that non-
fiction. I have been a professional writer in my past as a trial and
appellate attorney. There the RULES were very clear. Something that
did not comply was rejected or the judges would stop reading at the
page limit. It led to forced conciseness, a living of sorts, and a lot
of unhappy, sleepless nights. No hungry duck there.

I doubt I will join another group. Sharing ideas without exploring
empathy as a value and practice is unappealing.

> Alternatively, forget about conciseness and find a different forum that
> doesn't ask so much discipline and work. nvc-evolves can't be the only game
> in town for exchanging ideas.

This sounds like a concise though indirect threat or demand. It is not
connected in any pre-conventional, conventional, or post-conventional
NVC form or spirit. If this energy stems from concision, then give me
prolixity. I will not leave a shamed puppy jackal with my tail between
my legs. If I decide to leave it will only be after all needs are on
the table and it seems the best strategy to meet those needs. Sorry if
this is to OFNR, but it is the best I will do.

If it meets your unexpressed "needs" to kick me off or if that is your
strategy for giving me an "F: grade on your forum, I have no power
with or over to stop you. You are the moderator and Google gives you
that power with the click of a mouse. I would prefer that we move this
to an empathy based discussion, but as Kelly Bryson was reported to me
as having said, if you can't do empathy, do honesty. If nothing else,
jackal honesty is more concise and a lot easier. So there you have a
mixed scream in giraffe and jackal honesty.



> Do these suggestions help?

Yes and no. That is all I say. Dont want to fall into prolixity.

> > > > > > I butchered your- Hide quoted text -

[Conal Elliott]

Craig,

I've placed you on moderated status in the group, meaning (as I understand) that your posts will not show up until I indicate.  Perhaps between the two of us, we can work out a clearer understanding of my intentions for having this group and whether and how you and I can both enjoy your continued contributions.

Below, you asked me for suggestions to help you reach conciseness.  I guess you weren't too excited about them, and I don't have any others at the moment, though some new ones may emerge.  I also offered you a suggestion for meeting your needs without this group.  After all, your participation here is just one strategy of many.

Take care,  - Conal

[Gedding]

I think im out of the loop here,

I feel worried when i read that someone is using Power-Over tactics to
change someone's status.
My need is for cooperation and helping.
I know that i get SOO frustrated when this happens to me, either
booted of a WoW guild because someone misinterpreted what i said, or
off a web forum because i have been labeled as a "trooler" or
something because i explained an opinion different or new to what the
dominating authority understood or liked.

I am sencing (perhaps i am off the mark) that there is some animosity,
unresolved need for acceptance and connection not met from earlier
posts perhaps?

I notice there were a number of threads on abortion and morality.
I did not look at any of them as that does not interest me, and i also
know that these things are taught to us primarily thru Jackal tactics
(guild, shame, fear, and other emotional tricks), that it is hard to
impossible to discuss rationally without being swayed by emotions.

That is not to say that emotions are to be ignored, just that the
emotions are linked to needs met/unmet elsewhere.
Usually deep within the subconscious. And it is very hard at times to
find out what that need is, and instead the emotions fall on the
arguments/conversation, or the partys involved.

So i steer clear. :-)

Actually as i think about it, those points are very important to the
deepening of NVC, i might start a tread about that later!


So my request is;
Is there animosity, unresolved feelings and needs?
Is there a power move being played on someone, (banning their posts,
or limiting them or something)?
Was it to do with the abortion and morality posts? :-D

[Craig Sones Cornell]

Conal, This is the equivalent of a husband telling a wife, by-by
honey, there are many places you can go to get your needs met. This
marriage was just one of many strategies you can choose. You don't
have to live here, there are plenty of places to live. I have invested
months in relationships here. My very heart and soul have been
invested here, I have propsed a strategy that you have ignored. Is not
a core principle of NVC to put all needs on the table and a strategy
will emerge? Where is NVC and needs in your world whan a heart is
aching? Sure I can survive without NVC Evolves. Meet your needs
elsewhere is all I get.

Craig

On Oct 2, 9:30 am, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> Craig,...
>
> read more >>

> > > > > > other. Even in our discussion here there is a subtle- Hide quoted text -

[Angela Harms]

2008/10/2 Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com>

Conal, This is the equivalent of a husband telling a wife, by-by
honey, there are many places you can go to get your needs met. This
marriage was just one of many strategies you can choose. You don't
have to live here, there are plenty of places to live.

If my husband didn't want to be with me anymore, I'm sure I'd ask if he's ok talking about it, but if he weren't, I'd wish him well and go (sobbing) to look for empathy elsewhere. If I insisted on sticking with him, when he said he didn't want that, I hope he'd feel confident in using force to protect himself.
 
That's how it looks to me if my request to talk was a request. If it were a demand, he'd probably resort to force sooner.

I have invested
months in relationships here. My very heart and soul have been
invested here, I have propsed a strategy that you have ignored. Is not
a core principle of NVC to put all needs on the table and a strategy
will emerge? Where is NVC and needs in your world whan a heart is
aching? Sure I can survive without NVC Evolves. Meet your needs
elsewhere is all I get.

The above makes me think that you are demanding, Craig. And in my experience, that's a sure way to get the other person to run screaming from the room.

[John Mudie]

I am feeling uncertain that this topic belongs on this list whose purpose I believe is to discuss NVC evolving.

I have needs for brevity, on topic discussions , and a reduction in traffic .

I am feeling overwhelmed at the number and length of messages as I have needs for conciseness and relevance

So my requests, which is also a possible strategy for this group are.

1/ To keep all messages under 100 words of original material;

2/ For each individual to limit themselves to one post per day

3/ To ensure that each message is concerned with the topic of NVC evolving. If not to communicate privately with the individual involved.

 

So would everyone be willing to check in (in a 100 words or less) their feelings and needs concerning this post.

 

John feeling hopeful

---

[Angela Harms]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Gedding <three3...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I feel worried when i read that someone is using Power-Over tactics to
change someone's status.

Ouch!

Gedding, I'm grateful that you put it so clearly, here, and I'm also sad about all the pain that's floating around.

And what keeps coming up for me is a need for autonomy. Here's a story...

Say Dude invites his friends, Jim, James, Paul and Tyrone, over to play poker. And they say Great! And in fact, it's so much fun that Dude opens up his treehouse to everybody who wants to come play poker.

One day he says to himself, "Why am I hating treehouse-night so much anymore?" Turns out, he realizes, it's because the guys keep coming over, but they don't want to play poker. They watch football and yell and cuss and laugh, and eat potato chips, but nobody plays poker. So he says, "Guys, I'm really not having treehouse night be about other stuff. I just want it to be about poker."

They accuse him of power-over, they talk about their feelings being hurt, and say "WHAT ABOUT MY NEEDS," and they keep coming and watching football in Dude's treehouse.

Dude decides he doesn't want to keep having these conversations, he just wants his treehouse back. So, while being careful to let people in who want to play poker (because otherwise what's the point?) he installs a lock on the door. Now, people who he isn't confident will want to play poker have to knock.

How is this a problem?

Angela

 

POi

[Angela Harms]

The post you replied to was 115, according to Word. Too many?

1/ To keep all messages under 100 words of original material;

 I kinda like that idea, though it's a request for something in the future, and I don't like agreeing to those.

2/ For each individual to limit themselves to one post per day

Nope. Exciting intellectual exchange is too awesome.

3/ To ensure that each message is concerned with the topic of NVC evolving. If not to communicate privately with the individual involved.

I do like that idea. I have mixed feelings about this topic of the list's direction, but in honor of your request, I'm gonna post the ways in which I think it's on-topic and interesting. :)

Angela

[Conal Elliott]

Hi Gedding,

What's going on for me is described in my post "Clarifying the group direction"

I'll respond to your questions for myself

> Is there a power move being played on someone, (banning their posts,
> or limiting them or something)?

I guess that's a matter of interpretation/evaluation.

I've created a space for others to join me in the kind of play/work I want to do.  Recently, I discovered that some people who came to do that have stopped participating because of all the other stuff going on.  Now I'm clarifying my invitation.

> Is there animosity, unresolved feelings and needs?

I'm sad to see that my intention for this group has been diluted by so much other content and words.  I'd prefer much more focus, even if the group were much less active, so I and the people interested in joining me can go about this intention effectively and enjoyably.

> Was it to do with the abortion and morality posts?  :-D

In part.

  - Conal

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Gedding <three3...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Conal Elliott]

Hi John,

I've realized that word length is important but secondary to me.  I'd be happy for 100,000 words under some circumstances.  (I suspect the same is true for you, given your "conciseness and relevance" remark.) What matters to me is that the ideas/content of the posts be "worth" the words spent on them, in the context of my intention for the group.  (See "Clarifying the group direction".)

The easiest way I know how to communicate this worth metric is for me to moderate and add specific pointers as they arise.  Accordingly, I have just switched the group to be moderated by default.  If you have input on moderation at any point, please offer it to me.

How does that sound?

   - Conal

[Niklas Wilkens]

Hey Angela,

this stimulated a reaction in me:

> The above makes me think that you are demanding, Craig. And in my
> experience, that's a sure way to get the other person to run screaming
> from the room.

I've had many painful situations in my life, where other people would think I'm demanding something and they sort of ran screaming from the room. And what I would've loved in that moment was awareness on the part of the other person that if I was connected to their needs, i.e. aware of them, that I would care about them. I would've wished that the other person would have had enough presence and awareness of the beauty of his or her needs, so that my needs could be heard equally. That what he or she heard as demand was actually me in pain and agony about something, with no real intention to harm or threat. From that experience, I see demands coming from the fear, that it could be impossible that my needs would be received as beautiful, as a gift of life to be loved. And I see tragedy in continuing that game by hearing and interpreting that as a demand.

Up to this point I conclude from this, that there are no demands. There are people in pain, desperately looking for connection. And they either get it or they don't. Whether I receive somebody else's pain as a demand is not dependent on what he says or how he says it, but on my self-connection. Or in other words, somebody else's demand is only a demand to me, when a part of me agrees that I should comply without including my needs. As long as I see my needs as beautiful gifts of life which are only to be loved, I have no trouble hearing somebody's pain, because I don't even get the idea that I would have to give something up. That's what I want to focus on, because nobody benefits when I interpret the other person's pain as a demand, however expressed. And since I want to strengthen my self-connection anywhere, independent from the circumstances, this challenge lies along the way. I'd like to invite you all to do the same.

I'm looking for reactions, hoping for understanding and further input.
Warmly
Niklas
--
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger

[Conal Elliott]

I suggest defining "making a demand" to mean asking for something while having some attachment to getting it.

As for "hearing a demand", I see two different meanings in use, sometimes leading to confusion.  The more direct meaning (closest to literal interpretation) is inferring (accurately or not) that someone has an attachment to getting what they're asking for.  A second meaning is very like making a demand.  It's when the request *hearer* is attached to the the request *maker* getting what they ask for.  The first sense of hearing a demand can help connection, e.g. for empathy, while the second is most likely to be thwart connection.

I think Angela is saying that if you make a demand then the other person is likely to join you in your attachment, leading to an internal conflict from which they run screaming.

I think you are saying that if you make a demand, it'd be awful nice if the other person was able *not* to join you in your attachment to getting what you ask for, so that they had a better chance to tune in to your need.

I agree with both of these statements.

Angela & Niklas: how do these paraphrases fit?

  - Conal

[Angela Harms]

Gut reaction, I like that defintion of "making a demand." Second reaction, I'm not sure it's full enough.

Maybe a demand also includes a willingness for the other person to act according to *your* preferences instead of *theirs*? When I'm in a place of requesting, I'm really solidly in the place of wanting the person to fulfill the request ONLY if they're doing it with joy, to meet their own needs, etc. But when I'm demanding, I don't give a fuck. (Boy, I'm sad remembering those times.)

I think maybe I can also have attachment to getting something and still make a request. I'm pretty sure, actually. Because I have a sort-of ingrained aversion to coercion (except when I have my head up my ass).

So I can really imagine a situation where I think I'll surely die if I don't get what I want--the husband leaving scenario, for example, coming out of the blue when I'm not prepared--and I'm crying and begging and between sobs and outbursts saying please be really careful to make sure you don't do what I want out of guilt or anything, please, please!

Sound crazy?

Angela
---
Life. Love. Food. www.lifelovefood.com