This is a linkpost for https://honestliving.substack.com/p/practice-blocking-communication
Have you ever noticed a verbal tic and tried to remove it? For example, maybe you've noticed you say "tubular" a lot, and you'd like to stop. Or you've decided to use "whom" 'correctly'.
When I try and change my speech, I notice that by default my "don't do that" triggers run on other people's speech as well as my own, and I have to make a conscious refinement to separate them.
Not entirely wrong
They're entirely correct. Learning new communication techniques are about what you choose to say, not what other people do.
As I like to say, ignorance does not excuse a sin, it makes two sins: the original, and the fact you didn't put in the effort to know better. So, if you really do just possess a better method of communication—for example, you prefer talking disagreements out over killing each other—you're completely justified in flexing superior on the clueless outsiders. This doesn't mean it will always be effective, just that you're not breaking the "cooperate unless defected against" strategy, and the rest of rational society shouldn't punish you for it.
Well, killing each other to resolve arguments does seem like the kind of thing I would frown upon (unless the killers seem to dislike other people frowning at them)
This post is targeted more towards people picking up things like Nonviolent communication (which I think can be great*) and ending up angry at their parents/friends for not being skilled.
When someone new to nvc ends up judging non-practitioners, focusing more on failures than understanding, then they're shooting themselves in the foot.
Even if you want to convert everyone, I would argue that irritation & correcting others aren't an optimal way to drive adoption.
*) more info here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PCrTQDbciG4oLgmQ5/sapir-whorf-for-rationalists
When you start practicing a shiny new communication method—like neatly sorting your observations from your judgments—you tend to pick up a few rules on how you “should” talk. You learn these rules from courses, books, or practicing with other rule-followers.
Soon enough, you're helpfully pointing out when someone steps outside the boundaries of your newly-adopted communication norms. In a practice setting, this kind of feedback is expected—even encouraged—though not always gratefully received.
But here's the kicker: when you leave the bubble of your training grounds, reality hits. Turns out most people aren't thrilled about unsolicited critiques of their communication habits. They see your helpful hints as power moves—like you’re flexing superior knowledge. And, annoyingly enough, they’re not entirely wrong.
See, once you've found your shiny new communication tool, it's easy to think you've hit the jackpot. Anyone who doesn't play by your rules suddenly seems like a clueless outsider or an outright jerk. You're tempted to point out all the ways they're failing to communicate properly, but that's not constructive—that’s you trying to rig the game in your favor.
Nit-picking other people's communictation isn't helping you understand them; it's a shadowy way to tilt the arena in your favor. If your communication practice makes communication harder, something is off.
To prevent this failure mode, treat your communication style as something you've chosen for yourself—not a universal truth you impose on everyone else. The people you practice with have committed to the same norms as you; this is not true for most people in the outside world.
P.S: This is related to the bias blind spot - an effect where learning about ways you can fail at thinking is very helpful for spotting thinking errors—in other people.