HN Books @HNBooksMonth

It's Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication, third edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/1892005034

I read the Nonviolent Communication (https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Mar...) book at the recommendation of a counselor a decade or so back and it really changed my life and how I interact with people.

I think as a programmer I am not atypical in that I sometimes struggle with empathy or how people reacted to things I said, but NVC gave me a framework to communicate in a healthier way. This wasn't just something that helped at work, it had an enormous effect on my personal life as well and I credit it to having strong relationships now.

I think the only frustrating piece is sometimes dealing with other who have not read (or do not subscribe) to the same philosophies. It can be very trying to respond to attacks with empathy but in the end that's still always the best strategy.

Highly recommended and not just if you are a manager, if you deal with other human beings at all, read it.

> Um, OK and rewriting history is a tactic favoured by fascists.

We're not rewriting history. Allowing a transgendered person to choose a new name doesn't change the basic facts about what happened. It's just an act of compassion towards someone who would otherwise be suffering from feelings neither you nor I personally experience, but are well documented by scientists.

> Shouldn't it be "Bradley Manning (now called Chelsea)"?

You could say "Chelsea Manning (at the time, 'Bradley')" if you really wanted to refresh people's memories, so long as you consistently refer to her as Chelsea through the rest of the comment/essay/etc.

> I prefer objective to polite.

This is a false dichotomy. You can be both.

https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Mar...

⬐ pbhjpbhj

You can't always raise objective facts and remain polite. I disagree.

Someone changing their name and identifying as the opposite sex after being arrested (the next day I think?) in a major political scandal makes that pertinent to the history of the situation. Hiding that by pretending the person always was identified as they currently are hides facts about the situation -- are they pertinent, maybe not to the primary issue, but the contemporaneous nature suggests something of interest (in social history if nothing else).

⬐ dang

Please stop.

⬐ pbhjpbhj

How will I come to an understanding of why people act in this manner without questioning those who do?

Are you asking in your position as moderator?

⬐ dang

Yes.

⬐ CiPHPerCoder

That's easy: By questioning them on your own platform, not on HN.

⬐ danso

FWIW, Lamo himself consistently uses Chelsea/her/she when writing about the past:

https://medium.com/@lamo/a-statement-on-the-commutation-of-w...

I'll throw out Marshall Rosenberg's "Nonviolent Communication." Call it one framework for listening centered around resolving conflict between individuals and groups.

It provides examples of the kind of active listening and questioning mentioned in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Four_... https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Mar...

⬐ woodandsteel

That's a great book.

⬐ overcast

That's a good starting point, thank you!

"Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall Rosenberg was very helpful for me. A great resource about choice of words and the internal assumptions we make when we communicate in certain ways. http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-A-Language-Li...

Here's the fix: don't compare yourself to others - compare your today's self to your tomorrow's self (ie: grow your own abilites instead).

I really suggest reading "Nonviolent Communication" (http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Mars...), which gives a lot of insight on these topics.

You're making the assumption that not showing up at 9 means the guy is not motivated - which clearly is probably totally unrelated. Help him strive by staying open-minded.

Something that will be beneficial to you: learn about Non-Violent Communication (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1892005034). You're clearly making a lot of evaluations/interpretations, instead of checking the facts.

I think you're most likely subject to some kind of procrastination. I call this and similar phenomenons "brain bugs".

A common pattern in that area: not finishing a project avoids any confirmation that the idea itself was bad, because the idea is not really unvalidated, as the execution isn't complete.

Any way to reinforce the inner confidence is helpful here. In my case, non-violent communication (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1892005034) has been very helpful to understand the inners of procrastination.

Understanding "brain bugs" as I call them is a fascinating and rewarding road :)