Index of Non-Attacking Phrasing for Innocent Questions/Statements?

[Poppy98]

Have you found any good go-to phrases?





So far my best one is telling someone my intent before I get to the point,

ex."hey, I was going to invite you to join our department for lunch, do you know when you'll be done with your current work?"

The alternative tends to go like this:
Me: hey, any idea when you'll be done because--
Them: WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS?!?! I'LL TAKE TWICE AS LONG NOW JUST TO SHOW YOU!!!

Edit:
They can be suggestions for other types of interactions too, like favors, commands, clarifications, etc.)

 

[Jeff T]

my own variation would be:

"hey, I was going to invite you to join our department for lunch, if you'd like to attend, please do!"

Doesn't force the other to try to figure out if their workload would allow them to attend, or to say NO!?

Just my $0.02

If you have to plan for a specific head count, then this wouldn't work well.

 

[Poppy98]

my own variation would be:

"hey, I was going to invite you to join our department for lunch, if you'd like to attend, please do!"

Doesn't force the other to try to figure out if their workload would allow them to attend, or to say NO!?

Just my $0.02

If you have to plan for a specific head count, then this wouldn't work well.

Yeah, that's probably true. Then it leaves the door open.


Do you have go-to's for other situations (ex when disagreeing or when supporting someone?) Do they tend to occur to you as they come up?

 

[Shevek]

I recommend "Non-Violent Communication." in both book and seminar form. It would have done me a lot of good if only they had warned me I'd have to apply the lessons while in a completely novel emotional state.

 

[Hypnalis]

Keep it as simple as possible, but deal with necessary questions:

Q: Would you like to have lunch with me/group-XX in about 30 minutes.
NB: Your participation is implied, so it doesn't need to be stated
A1: Sounds good: where are we eating?
A2: Sorry, I need an hour to finish this
A3. No thanks.

Framing principles include:
* Keep the opening question short: minimal but complete. Activity; who else is involved; and timing is often enough
* Prepare for questions about what you leave out (e.g. where to eat).
* Make refusal easy. Never question any form of refusal
* If they say no, "Ok. Maybe another time" (or similar) is a sufficient response

 

[Rodafina]

telling someone my intent before I get to the point

I find it super helpful when people do this to me. Questions are inherently anxiety-provoking because I often don't understand WHY they are asking. Knowing the why first really helps me process the conversation.

 

[Dagan]

Asking every question beginning with "if" tends to work out.

"If you are free for lunch, some of us are going to......."

"If you are free after work, some of us are thinking about......."

 

[Poppy98]

Asking every question beginning with "if" tends to work out.

"If you are free for lunch, some of us are going to......."

"If you are free after work, some of us are thinking about......."

Oh, that's a clever shortcut. It doesn't require as much analysis to put together.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Poppy98

Leading with ïf" is useful sometimes, but not always.

For example It's redundant when asking someone at work to eat lunch: the assumption is that they will, and if not, it's on them to tell you.

For something where there aren't a set of reasonable assumptions it would be fine. But in those cases you can lead with a direct question:

Q: Are you going to the Business Partner's presentation <at external location X> tomorrow?
A1: No
A2: Yes
A3: Yes, would you like a ride?
etc

There's a gap in between my version of the lunch question and the scenario above when you could lead with "ïf".
But it's quite a small gap for me, because an "if opening" usually breaks the "simplest possible opening" principle.


A question:
I'm assuming you started this thread because it's something you want to improve.
Can you specify it as a problem and/or an objective, rather than via examples?

 

[Poppy98]

@Poppy98

Leading with ïf" is useful sometimes, but not always.

For example It's redundant when asking someone at work to eat lunch: the assumption is that they will, and if not, it's on them to tell you.

For something where there aren't a set of reasonable assumptions it would be fine. But in those cases you can lead with a direct question:

Q: Are you going to the Business Partner's presentation <at external location X> tomorrow?
A1: No
A2: Yes
A3: Yes, would you like a ride?
etc

There's a gap in between my version of the lunch question and the scenario above when you could lead with "ïf".
But it's quite a small gap for me, because an "if opening" usually breaks the "simplest possible opening" principle.


A question:
I'm assuming you started this thread because it's something you want to improve.
Can you specify it as a problem and/or an objective, rather than via examples?

Well, I was more so looking for suggestions that work for a wide array of situations or ones that would come in handy that I hadn't thought of.


One thing I am trying to figure out right now is how to deal in a variety of ways with people who bully and control.


One of my housemates in particular is a felon. She bullies and belittles to get her way. I'm already not someone who needs to be told to pull my fair share. She seems to be but instead blames other people, etc, plays games.


Anyway, I saw that the trash needed taken out (in the community area) and was going to finish up what I was doing and take it out. She arrived home and didn't want to do it (suprise, suprise) so she and her bully-buddy started ripping me to shreds in every way possible to try to get me to do it. Normally I would have, but I'm not encouraging their gorilla behavior. I don't know the last time either of them so much as cleaned up after themselves, much less pulling their own weight. Or told the truth, or...behaved as well as the average spoiled tot.

Anyway, she'll find a way to make this my problem because she has managed similar feats.

Any general and specific advice either on dealing with her, this situation, and or getting complex social advice in general?

 

[Hypnalis]

Well, I was more so looking for suggestions that work for a wide array of situations or ones that would come in handy that I hadn't thought of.

I think your objectives are sound, but I don't think all of your methods are.

For example some things are resistant to simple classification/categorization.
This doesn't mean it's not worth doing to a degree, but looking for 20/80 splits (i.e. selecting the ones you work with based on importance and frequency, and stopping the "slice and dice" process when you can't find any more that are common and/or important enough).

You can get a good ND/NT comprehension and translation system with that kind of approach.
OTOH trying to identify and cover every case might well take more than 1 human lifetime.

 

[Hypnalis]

Any general and specific advice either on dealing with her, this situation,

Dealing with psychos is possible, but you have to be fully prepared to face meltdowns, and possibly to induce them.

It's extremely common for people (not just psychos) to "blow up" when pushed. Most of their targets are uncomfortable with that, and work to avoid it, which makes it a winning strategy for psychos ... usually.

I mentioned something in a post a week or two ago (I forget the post and why I uses this particular idea though, so I'll repeat it:

There's a well-known (heuristic) principle of human interactions:
"Never wrestle with a pig. You won't win, you'll both get dirty, and the pig will enjoy it"

This is often useful, but it doesn't work with unreasonable people (a rapidly expanding group, who are trained/conditioned to use porcine techniques).

So I have a second, closely related principle:
"If you're forced into pig wrestling, be the pig".

Note that it's not a corollary or the opposite of the first: it's a distinct principle that borrows the well-known one's imagery.
:
:
So I can provide some ideas and techniques for dealing with your psycho, but you need to look inwards first: are you truly able to face your psycho and her accomplice when they're channeling their 9-year-old selves in a full-on brain-locked tantrum?

It's very likely to happen, and when they do it, rational discussion won't work. You have to lean in (not by escalating OFC - but you have to know how to act in the moment without rolling over).

FWIW hardly anyone I've explained even simple moves to actually use them. The reason isn't a negative reflection on them. Typically, the people who ask for such advice are naturally conflict avoidant, and they're not comfortable with "learning by doing" when there's a genuine risk of an adult tantrum.

The alternative will take longer, but AFAIK still exists: in-person Assertiveness Training (not online - you need to feel the heat).
"Normal" classes on this used to be common. But that infrastructure might have been subverted since I learned about i (from an XX housemate who took the class).
Take a look on the web and see what comes up.

 

[Poppy98]

trying to identify and cover every case might well take more than 1 human lifetime.

That is a concern of mine.

 

[Poppy98]

Assertiveness Training (not online - you need to feel the heat).

This probably would help.


Aggressive people are related to more than their fair share of my social headaches.


Normal people and I might have misunderstandings, but I think it makes a big difference that we're both at least trying.

 

[Hypnalis]

This probably would help.

Aggressive people are related to more than their fair share of my social headaches.
Normal people and I might have misunderstandings, but I think it makes a big difference that we're both at least trying.

A lot of aggression comes from a bad place. It might be manipulative, it might be due to specific internal issues with objective causes, and there are several forms of "internal chaos" that do it.
Most such people present as bullies sometimes.

The point being everyone meets such people now and then. It's a good idea to figure out (or learn) ways to minimize the harm they do, disengage, and to discourage them from interacting again.

FYI "Assertiveness Training" doesn't (or didn't when I was more familiar with it) exactly teach how to deal with troublesome people. It teaches students to be able to react accurately in situations where you're tempted to "let it go", "not rock the boat", or avoid discomfort.
"React accurately" is essentially "assess the situation; decide how to act, even if it's potentially uncomfortable; execute your plan".
Which sounds easy, but you need practice and confidence in your ability to execute your plan.
Apparently classroom scenarios with real people (e.g. role-play with instructors, teaching aides, and/or fellow students) are reasonably effective for that.

The possibility of "subversion" of such education is real these days though.
I've seen people using assertiveness techniques on YouTube quite often of late: it's predominantly one side of the "Culture War" using low-level techniques, and implementing them poorly.
That's a sign of brief training sessions (like part of a weekend "boot camp") designed for people who feel they're in a conflict, and (let's say) are low-level people / foot-soldiers. Which is why (a) they use very basic techniques, and (b) they still get them wrong, and/or fail in the face of equally simple resistance.
I don't believe something like that would be helpful for you.

The point of this is that I think you should be selective about where you look for this kind of training. Something done by e.g. a serious psychologist (individual or organization) aimed at normal people who are avoidant, shy, or easily stressed by unfamiliar situations.
That should serve to create a foundation. Then you'll know what you can and can't actually do IRL when faced with a psycho. Which in turn means you can select techniques that will probably work for you.

Mistakes and imperfections are still inevitable OFC, but fewer is better