HN Books @HNBooksMonth

I would say both. If you had to pick one, go with DC. However, there were some things in CC that I didn't find elsewhere. As an example, it focuses on how a lot of people don't realize they're in a poor/tense conversation until it's too late, and it emphasizes the need to develop the skill to become aware of this.

OTOH, CC attempts to prescribe how to behave are pretty poor. I would not focus too much effort on emulating those.

At first read, all 3 sound like fairly different books. A year after I read them, I was going over all the notes I had made for them, and was surprised to find out that all 3 are mostly saying the same things.

As for the authors:

Difficult Conversations: https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-What-...

Crucial Conversations: https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...

NVC is just a tool. There are a number of them that accomplish the same or similar things using similar techniques and principles. Fundamentally, they are just tools for someone who actually wants to move the conversation forward. There are people who abuse the language for manipulation, and it comes across as insincere because they aren't actually trying to solve the problem at hand. I can name a few from my own past. NVC doesn't make people seem more or less selfish than they already are.

It's sort of like a programming language. It won't turn a shitty programmer into a good one, but it will turn a good programmer into a more situationally effective one. The hardest part isn't learning the programming language, it's becoming a better programmer.

The first lesson in the book I learned from, Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...), is to recognize when you are becoming emotionally driven (angry, defensive, etc.) and to step back from it. Another key lesson is to focus on identifying and solving the collective problem - the key point is that in the vast majority of cases, especially in the workplace, there is a formulation of the problem such that everyone is trying to solve it, but they are just disagreeing on how to approach it. In my own experience that's been consistently true.

These are both introspective processes of first getting yourself into the right mindset and then employing the communication tools. Learning to first be generous to other people was the hardest and also the most crucial change, whether or not I had communication tools to go with it.

Crucial Conversations - https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...

Crucial Accountability - https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Accountability-Resolving-Expe...

Radical Candor - https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Candor-Kim-Scott/dp/B01KTIEFE...

Boundaries - https://www.amazon.com/Boundaries-Updated-Expanded-When-Cont...

⬐ trilinearnz

HBR Guide to Dealing with Conflict - https://www.amazon.com/HBR-Guide-Dealing-Conflict/dp/1633692...

Sorry to hear.

Check out Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...). It's a framework that I've found immensely helpful.

If interested, I do recommend you read the book, but you can still get something out of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFaXx3pgaxM (it's a summary masquerading as a review).

⬐ blablabla123

Yeah, the book is really good. But also only useful in really exceptional situations. (Speaking about workplaces, only in a toxic workplace there is use for it.)

It plays out exactly as described in "Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High"[1]. Recommended.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...

No, not really. For this specific example, Damore knew the issue is a divisive one. If he didn't, then he does need to have some basic sensitivity training. From what I remember reading, he did acknowledge the issue was contentious. In that respect, there are ways and techniques to have that conversation. What Damore did was not that way. He should have consulted a resource like Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...) first.

⬐ rpiguy

Sensitivity training would not have helped and is not required here.

He went out of his way to praise women engineers and to emphasize he supports diversity.

There are just certain that intolerant people cannot discuss rationally, like biological gender differences.

The fault lies with the intolerant minds, not Damore's approach.

⬐ Delmania

That's victim blaming. His claims that he supports diversity are nothing more than false virtue-signaling. I have yet to find a person who would say there are no biological gender differences. The problem is assuming those differences are the underlying cause for why women and minorities are under represented in technology. Were you aware the first programmers were females? There are -many- reasons why women and minorities are underrepresented. The biological differences are not a significant one.

⬐ backpropaganda

> Were you aware the first programmers were females?

That was when there were some low thousands of software engineers in total. Hardly statistically significant to compare with today's population.

The first few engineers were female because of sexism in the 1970s. The only mainstream jobs they were allowed to have were teaching and programming. There are fewer females now because of lack of sexism not due to it. As society became liberal, women started becoming doctors and lawyers, which matches with their interests much more than programming.

⬐ rpiguy

Damore is the victim of an aggressive and intolerant mob. I am certainly not victim blaming.

⬐ jshevek

Yes, the fault lies with intolerant minds.

If we forget this, then intolerant minds will have awesome veto powers over what the rest of us will be allowed to discuss.

Intolerant people are likely to use those veto powers.

⬐ 013a

Damore self-identifies as autistic [1]. Are you seriously suggesting that the proper course of action is that a mentally ill individual should receive training on how to speak and think from his corporation? What has the world come to where this is sanity.

Liberals today: "Embrace diversity of thought, color, and sexual genitalia! Wait I don't like that thing he said, fire him. Wait, he's mentally ill and thus persecuted, he needs to be protected. Wait, autism isn't a metal illness, he's fine just the way he is. Wait, he's a white male, he's not fine just the way he is, he's evil. Wait, he's self-identifying as autistic, he's not really autistic, a doctor has to diagnose him. Wait, no, that's different than self-identifying your gender, that's totally fine."

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesDamore/comments/6thcy3/im_jame...

I liked Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...) a lot.

⬐ JoshTriplett

I did as well. I also like "Daring Greatly", and to a lesser extent "Influencer".

I hadn't heard of "Radical Candor" before its mention elsewhere in this thread, but a quick look at it turned up promising results, especially the fact that it distinguishes between empathy and directness, and discusses the failure modes of having either without the other.