The power of idea's

As I have mentioned in previous posts, some of us have been introducing NVC principles to North Hennepin Community College. We have created a set of meeting guidelines for committee meetings around the concept of needs. Essentially, we invite participants to identify met or unmet needs that they are currently experiencing in the beginning and end of meetings. We have hoped that this will increase connection, and that trust and respect will follow.
I have recently spoken to some colleagues who have received this very brief and informal training. Their interpretation was that it was “top-down” and that they did not trust the process. My guess is that they were in need understanding, safety, freedom and choice. At any rate, it reminded me how important it is to invite people to participate without judgment or demand.
I think that “good ideas” (i.e. ways of making the campus a better place, ways of getting people to get a long, ways of promoting peace) are met with resistance at an institutional level because of a need for choice and freedom, the freedom and choice to say no, not participate and express doubt. Often when “new initiatives” are taken on, the energy and thrust behind them leaves little room for the individual to disagree, lest they become a “downer”, “skeptic” or “negative”. Most education, training, good idea or movement has air of righteousness to it, that preferences the idea over the person. The thrust behind the movements’ argument is often: “if I can get you to do something the way I want you to, you will soon be enlightened enough to understand and accept.” All of history seems to be one convincing and profound idea after the next. Inevitably, this is always met with resistance. This is because there is a kind of tyranny of solutions and good ideas, no matter how “good”, peaceful, or democratic they are. Our enlightened knowledge, our supreme vision for the world, whatever it may be, can only be heard if those we are educating can trust that they will not be punished or judged for an unpopular opinion. Actually this means that we have to change our objective from educating (no matter how enlightened, or knowledgeable we are), to connecting.
In my opinion the beauty and power of a process like NVC is that it is premised on the principle that acknowledges all perspectives and needs, regardless of their popularity. With NVC the goal is only to connect rather than to get people to do things your way. I believe that we will find that if our goal is to do anything other than connect, (i.e. To convince, to remind, to tell, to educate etc.) we will always be met with resistance, doubt and mistrust.

Department of Peace

Keith Ellison supports a Peace Department after traveling to Norway.

"I learned quite a bit about how Norway, through the government and through NGOs, has really helped to promote peace," Ellison said. "It really has shown how if we can make peace in various areas of the world, it's a lot less expensive in terms of lives and treasure."

Yawning and Empathy

Researchers demonstrate link between contagious yawning and empathy.

Altruism and Complexity

Marlow and Berbesque find that "third-party" punishment occurs more often in more complex societies. Second party punishment is defined as punishing those who cheat, or do not cooperate with you. Third party punishment is defined as punishing those who cheat or don't cooperate with others. Perhaps the more complex a society you have, the more control you need over the people and the more control you need, the more sophisticated mechanisms of punishment you need?

Other information related to empathy

If you haven't read the NY Times Bestseller Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships by Daniel Goleman, the author of the earlier bestseller, Emotional Intelligence, pick up a copy and read the evidence that empathy is a powerful communication device. There is also a CD version of the book in case you want to listen to it in your car while you're driving. Goleman, a graduate of the Department of Psychology at Harvard University shows a diverse and deep knowledge of the literature in the field of social neuroscience and other empathy-related fields of psychology.

Not only does he propound the power of empathy with strong evidence from many research studies, he also talks about ways empathy could have importance in juvenile detention residences and prisons, as well as at work and in relationships. Going deeper he relates what is experienced in social settings and with empathy to studies of the activation of specific neural groups like the amygdala (anger center, in what he calls the "lower road" pathways) and frontal cortex centers (logic center, in what he calls the "higher road" pathways).

Goleman explains how there is a link created between the brains of a healthy mother and her child relationship in which the mother is tuned in to what her child needs insuring that her child has a strong, safe connection as a base for exploring the world that affects how her child develops. He then extends this to understand behavior of people in relationships, at work, or in disciplinary situations that he claims are creating more criminals than curing them. Like Marshall Rosenberg, he supports strongly the concept of restorative justice, showing to me that this book was not your ordinary complaint about the way the system currently works, but actually offered up real solutions that work.

So if you're really interested in the basis of NVC, and would like to understand it at neural, psychological and social levels of thought, pick up this book.

Power Point on NVC

| View | Upload your own

Altruism

I just read a post at greater good discussing recent research reported in the New York Times that identifies pet-owners willingness to give affection and love to their pets as evidence of "pure altruism". We give our pets love and affection with no expectation that the pet will give anything in return. Therefore generosity must carry its own rewards i.e. positive emotions, rather than being a means to some favorable end.

On the other hand, perhaps what the pet "gives" is similar to what humans "give" when they practice empathy. Although it appears that the pet gives nothing back, perhaps the mere reception of their love is a gift to us?

Depression

I just read an interesting New York Times Science editorial. The author discusses the link between depression and a endochrine condition called hyperparathyroidism.

The Science of Happiness

I just read an article titled "The Science of Happiness" in Harvard magazine, written by Craig Lambert. It summarizes the principles of positive psychology and notes its gaining popularity in academia. Of interest to me were a number of arguments made about the utility of happiness, pleasure and pain and their evolutionary functions

“We start with a mild tendency to approach [others],” Etcoff continues. “But when we encounter something negative, we pay extraordinary attention to it. Think about hearing a description of a stranger: ‘Joe is happy, confident, and funny. But he’s cheap.’” Negative information like this can forecast a problem: if Joe is cheap he may hoard, rather than share his resources with us. “Our emotions are like a smoke detector: it’s OK if they sometimes give a false signal,” Etcoff says. “You don’t die from a false positive. It’s better to be too sensitive. We evolved in a world of much more immediate danger—germs, predators, crevasses.”

And further:

“We didn’t evolve for happiness, we evolved for survival and reproduction.” For this reason, we are sensitive to danger."

It is argued that it pays to be skeptical of people rather than to trusting. It is interesting that she states that we have a tendency for "approach" but that this fades when we hear something negative. This highlights the distinction between the premises that underlie NVC and those that underlie most accounts of the human behavior. From an evolutionary perspective we are fundamentally programmed to reproduce rather than seek happiness or "enrich life". Being happy in close relationships is just a nice by-product in the quest to fulfill our evolutionary purpose.

Also interesting were George Vaillant’s comments on emotions:
“Negative emotions help us to survive individually; positive emotions help the community to survive. Joy, unlike happiness, is not all about me—joy is connection. Beethoven knew little happiness, but he knew joy.”

Negative emotions are useful because they keep us safe and healthy from the threats of other self-interested individuals while positive emotions help us connect, collaborate and cooperate which also is necessary for our survival. Thus, evolutionary thinking provides an explanation for the experience of both positive and negative emotions. Consequently negative emotions like anger and disgust are viewed as appropriate responses to potentially threatening environments. Then again, different cultures are likely to have different responses to the same stimulus. A good example is incest, where cultures vary considerable in their level of tolerance and/or disgust for this practice. Is it possible that emotions are learned responses?

Happiness activates the sympathetic nervous system (which stimulates the “flight or fight” response), whereas joy stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system (controlling “rest and digest” functions). “We can laugh from either joy or happiness,” Vaillant said. “We weep only from grief or joy.” Happiness displaces pain, but joy embraces it: “Without the pain of farewell, there is no joy of reunion,” he asserted. “Without the pain of captivity, we don’t experience the joy of freedom.”

This distinction between joy and happiness seems similar to the Buddhist notions of well-being. Where happiness or the experience of pleasurable sensations is temporary and ignorant, and joy represents a more sustainable and lasting inner peace. It is interesting that this potentially corresponds to the neurophysiology of the brain.

Building Campus-Wide Trust and Respect

Below is the presentation we gave as part of our AQIP project. This project is part of the college's larger accreditation process. Specifically, our group worked on building campus-wide trust and respect.

Today we would like to present to you our AQIP project that we hope will strengthen campus-wide trust and respect. It has been difficult for our group to come up with a tangible and doable AQIP project for promoting campus-wide trust and respect. Part of this difficulty was just trying to understand what Trust and Respect actually mean to us as a campus. We came to realize that these terms actually can mean different things for different people and that any policy, project, suggestion that we could potentially come up with was likely to increase trust and respect for some, while decreasing trust and respect for others.

To illustrate, imagine our group found that trust and respect was lacking because employees didn’t know each other well. Imagine that in order to deal with this, the T and R group made the suggestion that every employee is required to say hello with a smile when they pass someone in the hallway. It became clear to us that although a “rule” like might be good for some circumstances, it may be difficult or cumbersome in others.

We would like to now present a skit that addresses the process by which our group went through to grapple with this issue. The skit is not intended to represent an actual conversation or what people actually said in our meetings. It is however, a representation of a particular issue that came up in our group and how we collectively agreed to address it. Our intention is to highlight the difficulties we faced in addressing campus-wide trust and respect and how we choose to go forward.

Trust and Respect - Meetings_1.doc

Memory

In conflict we rely on memory to recount events. What happens when 2 people have different recollections of the same event? Is it possible to have all parties needs met when an accurate history can not be achieved?

One would assume that accuracy would be important for resolution, as we need to clarify the event(s) in order to move forward. But is it possible to have different histories and still move forward, to reach resolution without the "truth"?

This clarifies a difference between "getting all parties needs met" and "establishing the truth". When we seek to get all parties needs met we are less reliant on an accurate report of history and are more concerned with the present moment. It seems important to approach each conflict with the intention of ensuring all parties needs are met, rather than getting a handle on the truth.

Iraq War Time Line

Here is a nice time line outlining the press and events surrounding the Iraq War at Mother Jones Magazine.

Human Bonding and Oxytocin

Here is a great editorial in the New York Times by David Brooks.

In it he discusses the importance of human bonding, attachment etc. for education.

"Over the past few decades federal and state governments have spent billions of dollars trying to improve high schools. Much of the effort has gone into trying to improve individual math and reading scores. But the effects have been modest and up to 30 percent of students drop out -- a social catastrophe.

The dropout rates are astronomical because humans are not machines into which you can input data. They require emotion to process information. You take kids who didn't benefit from stable, nurturing parental care and who have not learned how to form human attachments, and you stick them in a school that functions like a factory for information transmission, and the results are going to be horrible."

"If I had $37 billion, I would focus it on the crucial node where attachment skills are formed: the parental relationship during the first few years of life. I'd invest much of it with organizations, like Circle of Security, that help at-risk mothers and fathers develop secure bonds with their own infants, instead of just replicating the behaviors of their own parents. I'd focus on the real resource crisis that afflicts the country. It's not the oil shortage. It's the oxytocin shortage."

NVC Part 2: Critical Thinking

One of the most fundamental values in the tradition of education is the importance of thinking critically about the nature of the world. As science has progressed we have been able to unravel some of the mysteries of the very small to the very large, all with help of our ability to reason, rationalize and make judgements based on what empirically occurs in the world or agreed upon principles. This informs our science as well as our ethics. To be sure, the technologies of critical thinking, logic and reason have given us invaluable knowledge about the world. In addition to understanding the physical properties of our world, we have also used these ways of understanding to navigate our social life. In other words we use our critical thinking skills to evaluate morality, judge right and wrong and distribute punishments and rewards.

What I have found is that these tools, so important to science, education and knowing our world, are not all that great when it comes to interacting with other people, our friends, colleagues and families. I have found that we all act out of a sense of righteousness, be it in a meeting, at home with our families or in a religious conflict and that critical thinking in this regard leaves people feeling deflated and unfulfilled (even when it is established that they are right!). I found that the ability to decipher right and wrong action, behavior and thought breaks down when one considers multiplicity of perspectives etc. NVC is one alternative to this technology. One that doesn't make suggestions for action, thought or behavior based on what is "right" or "wrong", but rather on the level of needs.

Nonviolent communication part 1

It appears that history is replete with examples of human violence and cruelty. So much so that most academic disciplines regard competition and self-interest as fundamental to an understanding of “Human Nature”. Given the ubiquity of violence throughout history, evidence of other primate violence and are reliance on economic systems that are born out of a fundamental belief in competition, is it possible to suggest that humans can interact nonviolently?

I think it is. Morality is an invention, a system used to control people and tell them how to live. At the root of this belief is that humans are fundamentally in competition with each other because they have to share a finite amount of resources. This belief represents a fundamental mistrust of humanity. That if human beings are left to their own devices they will be destructive to themselves and others, and that rules and moral codes prevent people us from greed and selfishness. It becomes clear that my gain is another’s loss and my loss is another’s gain (this is a curios situation when considering what makes a close relationship). The problem, of course, is that we are also socialized to believe that if we try to meet others needs, by not evaluating and dictating their behavior, we cannot meet our own needs. Consider the example:

I am working late and remember that my girlfriend has a strong need to have me home at a reasonable time to help relieve her from a long day at work and with our daughter. Her need is maybe cooperation and understanding. At the same time, I have a strong need to finish my work, so that I can feel relaxed and at ease over the weekend. My need is order and ease. What "should" I do? I believe that we are socialized to believe that if we meet others needs, we sacrifice our own. Someone is right, someone is wrong. A person "should" do what is right. But what is right in this case? If I stop my work and drive right home, I am not able to meet my need for order and ease. If I attempt to meet my own need by staying at work, I am not able to meet my girlfriend’s needs (of which I ultimately want to do).

To me the problem isn't deciding whose need is stronger or more important, so to make a decision, but rather is a problem of our reliance on a win-lose paradigm. One in which one person's gain, be it in material or psychological resources, is another's loss. In a world, or organization, where we are trying to meet needs, there are no win or lose. When we begin to think about issues and problems that arise throughout the day in terms of needs we open ourselves up to new solutions. So I go from a situation where I could only choose to a) meet my needs or b) meet her needs, to one that considers meeting all needs, just by utilizing a different language. What might this look like? I am not sure, it might be a phone call, where I show empathy and understanding for her needs, and make a request for her to help me meet my needs for order and ease. If she trusts that I am truly concerned about meeting her needs, she will not only want to help me meet my needs, but do so joyfully. I believe that it is actually a gift, to be able to meet others needs. I give her the gift of helping me meet my needs. What can be more gratifying, for her and me?