Specializes in relationships, communication skills, conflict management and personal growth.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Kara-Kornher-PsyD
Is there a book better than nonviolent communication which can guide us on how to talk to others?
In my experience NVC is the best book I have found to guide our interactions with others. I also find the book Loving What Is, by Byron Katie, to be extremely helpful in our interactions with others. When we are able to accept others exactly as they are, and stop blaming them for not being the way we think they should be, our interactions become far more kind and productive.
What are the most important underlying principles of nonviolent communication?
Nonviolent communication is the best tool I have encountered for communication, resolving conflict and getting needs met. At first it is effort-filled to practice, like learning a foreign language. Once you integrate it into your way of thinking, the underlying principles take over, and it becomes automatic. These principles include:
- Everything a person does is an attempt to get a need met.
- Although we often disagree about the strategies to meet them, we all have the same set of universal needs.
- Although we may prioritize them differently, we all have a very similar set of things that we value. (e.g. safety, kindness, order, expression).
- It is possible to understand someone and have compassion for them, even if you are not in agreement with their priorities or strategies.
- No one is wrong for having an unmet need and we can all relate to feeling upset when our own needs are not met.
- There is always a solution in which all parties can get their needs met.
- Ultimately, each (adult) person is responsible for getting their own needs met.
- When we value each other’s well being, it is a gift to get to contribute to meeting one another’s needs.
What have you learned from Byron Katie?
1) That the main cause of suffering lies in our own unquestioned thoughts.
2) That memory is as faulty as imagination.
3) That the meanings we make of things and the stories we create (good or bad) take us away from the beauty of the present moment/what’s real and happening now.
4) That when something or someone triggers us, it gives us the opportunity to work on an unhealed part of our self.
5) That the things we need are available to us, whether we see it in the moment or not.
6) That people are basically good and are doing the best that they can.
Does the self-help guru Byron Katie advocate blaming yourself at all times?
Not at all. The underlying principles of Byron Katie’s work make fault and blame irrelevant. They also create the possibility of being responsible for one’s own well-being at all times. When we stop blaming others (or ourselves) we have the freedom to move forward in a much more powerful and authentic way.
How would you explain the difference between having healthy boundaries and being controlling?
I would define a boundary as a way of you taking care of yourself by means of your own words or actions. While being controlling is an attempt to dictate the words or actions of another, which is a losing game. When we try to control others, it often triggers their need for autonomy and they resist what we are try to get them to do. Instead, try making a direct request. For example: would you be willing to do this thing for me? All the better if you let them know what need of yours it would meet: “I’m feeling lonely because I am needing connection. Would you be willing to give me a hug?” People who care about us are eager to help meet our needs when they can.
Where do you draw the line between victim blaming and holding people accountable for their actions?
I don’t believe in victim blaming. I believe in victim empowering. When people view themselves as a victim, they tend to focus on the actions of others they believe have wronged them, assigning blame and often wishing they would *pay* for what they have done. They think of themselves as helpless, and at the mercy of others or circumstances. A more empowering approach would be to look at what they can do to take care of themselves in any given situation. One only has control over oneself. None of us has control over the actions of other people. So when we are focused on those, we are missing out on what we can control.
When someone says "I apologize, but --”, do you still treat it as a real apology?
In my mind, a sincere apology includes 3 parts: stating the words or actions one is referring to, stating that one regrets them, and stating why one regrets them (what value of theirs it does not meet). For example, if I do something that causes someone I care about to experience pain, that is not in alignment with how I value their well-being.
The words “I’m sorry” are often empty and given out of pressure or desire to end a conflict. The words “I’m sorry, but…” are often a prelude to a defensive explanation or accusation, deflecting blame. A true apology involves recognizing when one’s actions are not in alignment with one’s values, taking responsibility for those actions, and doing what one can to make amends.
Is it wrong to assume that people always have ulterior motives when doing things for other people?
People always have ulterior motives when they do things for other people. They are trying to get a need met, or prioritizing something THEY value. Often what they value is the well-being of the others that they are doing things for. And that is the best ulterior motive!
When will a “people pleaser” stop being a people pleaser?
A people pleaser will stop being a people pleaser when they realize that it does more harm than good.
People pleasers tend to have good intentions. They really do want what’s best for everyone. So once they learn that being a “pleaser” can contribute to resentment and misunderstandings in their relationships, they will find ways to be kind, but authentic with others. They will learn to give compassion without compromising their own needs. And they will begin to surround themselves with people who value them for who they are, and not just what they can do for others.
What does "not being responsible for other's feelings" mean when it comes to people pleasing and fearing disappointment in others?
People often think that their feelings are dependent on the behaviors of other people. This is an unfortunate belief, because it is so disempowering. We don’t have control over the behaviors of other people.
Our feelings are really dependent on whether our own needs are met or unmet. If I am needing solitude, I don’t mind if others are ignoring me. If I am needing connection, I’d be upset if others were ignoring me.
When people care about us, they are often happy to help meet our needs. And they cannot know what our needs are unless we tell them. Ultimately, as adults, we are each responsible for getting our own needs met. We can let others know what our needs are, and make specific requests of them to help us meet our needs. But another person is not responsible for meeting our needs. And another person cannot make us feel a particular way.
When we understand that our feelings are based on our needs being met (or unmet), and that we are each responsible for getting our own needs met, we can come from a position of personal power, rather than a place of blaming others for our negative feelings.
What is required when someone gives another the benefit of the doubt?
To give the benefit of the doubt requires that we allow room for uncertainty. If someone has said or done something that we deem offensive, there is always a possibility that we misheard them, misunderstood them, or misread their intentions. There is always room for doubt. When we give the benefit of the doubt, we hold off on assuming things like “they are a bad person” or “they intentionally tried to harm me.” Instead we remain open to the possibility that our interpretation of the situation is not the only one, or the most accurate one.
Why do some people get angry over non-factual opinions?
When people get upset over someone having a different opinion than theirs, they are likely believing that only one perspective can be right, and so the other person must be wrong.
Since no one wants to be wrong, they try to make the other person wrong. They become angry in the process of attacking the other person's view or defending their own.
If people could understand that differing perspectives are normal, even interesting, they could become curious about another person's point of view, rather than becoming defensive.
How do you get someone to admit they lied?
I would not try to get someone to admit that they lied. Each person has a different perspective, so often they may not agree with your assessment that they lied. For example, in any conversation there is what I said, what I meant, what you heard, how you interpreted what you heard, and how you recall it later. Those could be 5 different things! I wouldn’t expect both parties to agree all the time on what was said even, let alone whether or was honest and accurate.
Instead of accusing someone of lying (which will often lead to a defensive denial or a counter-attack) I might state what I heard and state that I am not in agreement with what I heard. I might say I recall things differently. I might even say that I value accuracy, or that I was confused by the conflicting information I perceived. But going farther than that is not likely to lead to a positive outcome.
How can you tell the difference between when you are reinforcing a victim mentality in yourself versus actually being in-over-your-head emotionally?
The way to tell if you are in a victim mentality is to look at whether you looking outward (blaming circumstances or others for your difficulties) or looking inward and asking, “given the circumstances, how can I take care of myself in this situation?” It is not about why or whether you are feeling overwhelmed. We all feel overwhelmed sometimes. Staying out of victim mentality depends on focusing on solutions and on what we can do for ourselves, vs getting others to change and making our well-being dependent on things that we do not control.
Why are people good even thought they do bad things?
Every thing a person does is an attempt to get a need met. We all have basic needs for things like safety, security, connection, etc,. When we do something misguided, ineffective, or even tragic in an attempt to get a need met, that does not mean we are bad. It simply means we have poor strategies and we are not likely to arrive at the outcome we are seeking. Sadly it can have negative impacts on others besides ourselves, and if we are compassionate people, that will cause us to feel regret.
How does someone deal with toxic people who won't go away?
In a word: Boundaries. Most people mistakenly believe that a boundary is a limit you set on someone else’s behavior. A boundary is actually what YOU will do to take care of yourself. You do not have control over anyone else’s behavior. And as an adult, your well-being is not dependent on someone else’s actions. You are able to take care of yourself.
If you’ve determined that someone is toxic to you, to the point where you can no longer be around them, then you must go away. This may mean ending the conversation or even the relationship. Going away may mean not answering their calls or texts, requesting that they no longer contact you, or blocking them if needed. It takes two people to interact, so if you want to stop the interactions, you must be the one to no longer interact, even if their attempts to contact you continue.
Do you send a gift when you want to say, “I am sorry”?
Yes! The gift you send is telling the other person exactly how your words or actions were not in alignment with something you value (like their happiness or well-being) and why you feel genuine regret.
What does it say about a friend who never apologizes when they’re wrong, nor acknowledges they are capable of making mistakes?
Often the way conflict is handled goes like this: Each person feels certain that they are right. Each views the other as wrong and tries to convince the other person if their perspective. Usually one person is determined to be wrong or at fault and is assigned blame. That person is expected to say “I’m sorry”, and no understanding or solutions are achieved. This may seem like a win/lose model, but it is really a lose/lose.
What it says to me about a person who does not participate in this model is that they long for something more. Perhaps they long for true understanding, win-win solutions, and authentic communication.
If you long for that too, I suggest next time there is a conflict, you try to understand the other person's unmet needs as well as your own. You may not agree with their behavior, perspective or priorities. But we can all relate to having needs. We can all relate to feeling upset when they are not met.
How can someone convince someone that their situation isn't that bad?
I would not recommend that you try to convince someone that their situation is not that bad. Often, when people feel upset, they will work harder and harder to convince you that their upset is justified if you try to tell them that it is not that bad. Instead, try giving them understanding about how bad they feel. (e.g. “I can see how upset you are by this” or “I can see how important this is to you.) You can do that without agreeing that you would be equally upset in similar circumstances, or agreeing that the situation is that important from your perspective.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Kara-Kornher-PsyD