# A Principled Cartoon Guide to NVC

*TL;DR: Making claims or demands about/into other people's internal states, rather than about your state or observable external states, predictably ties people in knots—instead: **only make claims about your own experience or observables**. This lets the other control the copy of them that's in the shared context.*[^xb0rr43ahh]

[Non-Violent Communication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication) rapidly grew into a world-spanning movement due to its remarkable ability to avert and dissolve conflict. [The NVC book](https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Life-Changing-Relationships/dp/189200528X) has a whole bunch of examples of communication procedures and practical tips. Here I'll try and convey the core insights more rapidly by focusing on the underlying principles I've extracted.[^k52g3tiinqr]

Background models
-----------------

People [have self-models](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/qhdHbCJ3PYesL9dde). People have models of other people. Conversations form shared context, which [syncs with both of those](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AqbWna2S85pFTsHH4/the-intelligent-social-web). Some ways of conversing work [better](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gPPdYTwPkdvAEYyEK/fucking-goddamn-basics-of-rationalist-discourse#xEMF7GeRbXcuKMt7L) than [others](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XPv4sYrKnPzeJASuk/basics-of-rationalist-discourse-1).

People's self-models are entangled with the copies of themselves inside the heads of the people they interact with, synced by conversational context. It's painful to be claimed to be something you don't want to be.[^gwnwu4wq00q] Dissonance between your self-model [unquoted](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cqH37z6Q92j8eYMkm/a-principled-cartoon-guide-to-nvc?commentId=rFSDxrnL63L7nE2KE#rFSDxrnL63L7nE2KE) claims about you is a type of [prediction error](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/05/book-review-surfing-uncertainty/) that hits particularly hard. 

Common collision in conversational context (Cartoons start here[^74h1t4p1bph])
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

![A diagram showing two stick figures representing Alice (left) and Bob (right), with their mental states and claims represented through various elements. The main figures are connected to thought bubbles and speech bubbles above them. Each stick figure has a letter inside their body - Alice has 'X' (in blue) and Bob has 'Y' (in yellow). Above Alice is a thought bubble containing two smaller stick figures labeled 'X' and 'Z', representing her belief about her own state and Bob's state. Above Bob is a thought bubble containing two smaller stick figures labeled 'X' and 'Y', representing his belief about Alice's state and his own state. Between them is a speech bubble (connected to Alice) containing two stick figures labeled 'X' and 'Z' with a 'W' between them, representing Alice's public claim about their states and the world state. Below this speech bubble is a standalone 'W' (in green), representing the actual world state. This illustrates a scenario where Alice has internal state X and believes Bob has state Z, while Bob has internal state Y and believes Alice has state X. Alice is publicly claiming that she has state X and Bob has state Z, along with world-state W.](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/988965549310a32d09650420e842367c6aa63782ce88c51b.png)

Alice is unhappy about an external state W, and thinks W is because Bob's internal state is Z. She shares her negative emotion along with her current prediction of the reason for W: Bob's state being Z.[^2fn9oggd0j4]

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/9bb594b4f26137ce23d07d256cb66735122a4cac31b3279c.png)

Bob's read of his own internal state is not Z and this collides with Alice's statement, causing dissonance.[^3zogoojayhj]

![Same diagram as before, but with two key differences: The world state 'W' at the bottom has been removed, and Alice's speech bubble (containing the stick figures labeled 'X' and 'Z') is now crossed out with a red circle-slash symbol, indicating that Bob is denying or rejecting Alice's claim.](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/58b13403067380d069218b54586e60d191c192cad5d24a95.png)

Naturally, Bob pushes back on the part of the exchange most salient to him: the adding of a false claim about something he has better access to mixed with negative incoming emotion.

Things can get messy from here! Bob and Alice are having a tug of war over a non-load-bearing part of the map–Bob's state–which is distracting them both from resolving the grievance.

This situation is often resolvable by sharing context if there's enough ambient trust, but it sometimes escalates in very harmful ways.

Just talking about yourself is [good, actually](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/mifkJ4GTdnpHspv7E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

![Similar to the first diagram, but with two key changes: In Alice's speech bubble, the right stick figure's state has been changed from 'Z' to a question mark '?', indicating that Alice is no longer making a claim about Bob's state. The caption below reads 'Now Alice raises W and X, but makes no claim on Bob's experience.](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/985f25ccb2fc2875c52456376ddac9a1637a84517614532a.png)

Now Alice raises W and X, but makes no claim on Bob's experience.[^zg8azh3fxac]

![The diagram has been modified to show Bob now speaking, indicated by a speech bubble with a question mark coming from him in response to Alice's statement about W and X. This represents Bob being able to engage with and inquire about Alice's claims regarding the world state W and her experience X, since these claims don't challenge or conflict with his own internal state Y.](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/5c02f87e1e6a4b56b1a3f22e318467f3f4478b260cb6bcee.png)

Bob can now focus on the information that matters most, W and X, with no threat to their self-model.

![The diagram shows a key change: In Alice's speech bubble, Bob's state is now shown as 'Y' rather than having a question mark, and Bob is responding with a question mark to this updated statement. This illustrates Bob being able to contribute his own state Y to the shared understanding, completing the conversational model while maintaining agreement with Alice's claims about W and X.](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/a2fdc5171b2c0af75d15e8cac924152ed65769823cf91119.png)

Bob can fill in the part of the conversational object that reflects his internal state and clarify the situation, without rejecting Alice's statement.

2x2 (Purpose x Domain)
----------------------

NVC makes it harder to make and easier to spot conflict-inducing claims and demands. The core procedure can be summed up as "only use things from this 2x2":

|     | Factual Statement | Desired Change |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Self | **Feelings** Internal emotional states and sensations we experience, *no interpretations of other's states*[^o18i8i3pnsr] | **Needs** Universal human requirements and ~terminal values, *no strategies to fulfil them*[^mzqv1mr0ue] |
| Observable | **Observations** Specific factual descriptions of reality all parties can verify, *no evaluation or generalizations*[^k7ai1ul8bhk] | **Requests** Specific actions we ask of others, *no vagueness or demands*[^4rfy2i61xex] |

(you're probably going to want to check at lease some of those footnotes for examples)

We've not really covered the lower half yet, but it's pretty straightforward. Making claims or asks about things that are **well specified**[^9nw8ik0f34h] and **verifiable by all parties**[^hq68n7uryid] is a safe conversational move since these won't be factually contested.

> *Reader: That was a 2x2 and some text. I was promised cartoons.*  
> *plex: ok, fair*

Observables (Cartoons #2)
-------------------------

![The diagram has several key differences from the earlier version. Thick black diagonal lines have been added from each stick figure to the speech bubble, suggesting barriers to direct observation of W. In the thought bubbles above, both figures now have a circle between their representations of states: Alice's thought bubble shows 'W' between X and Y, while Bob's shows 'M' between X and Y. This represents a situation where Alice believes the world state is W while Bob believes it's M, creating potential disagreement about the shared context. Alice's speech bubble maintains her claim about X and W, with a question mark for Bob's state, but the barriers indicate neither can directly verify the true world state.](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/3f38f5d33a3759cc45af1fc414fec93aecfd731b13d8cbcd.png)

Alice claiming W when Bob thinks M opens the potential for contest over which world-states the shared context contains. This is totally fine in many scenarios, like when there's trust, safety, and the ability to [double crux](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/double-crux). But in a disputed/conflict-y situation it's awesome if you can avoid needing to resolve debates over world states (or definitions) to proceed.[^pi9vgi62wbn]

![The diagram shows Bob strongly objecting to Alice's claim, indicated by a red exclamation mark next to his figure. The speech bubble between them now shows 'M' as the world state instead of 'W', while the actual world state 'W' remains at the bottom, still blocked from both participants' direct observation by the black diagonal barriers. The thought bubbles remain unchanged, showing their different beliefs about the world state (W for Alice, M for Bob), highlighting their conflicting mental models of the situation.](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/f690d3c2d0d9d77f367496bc5f9a319b4c785f0da6d34273.png)

This is not trivial to get out of, as models differ and the true state is not checkable. If you can find an alternative world state you can both observe to base the conversation on instead, things will go smoothly much more reliably.

![The diagram shows a resolution to the previous conflict, where both parties have found a new shared world state 'Q' (shown in purple). This Q state appears in three places: in both Alice and Bob's thought bubbles (replacing their previous differing W/M states) and in the speech bubble between them (with Alice's X state and a question mark for Bob's state maintained). A larger Q also appears above the speech bubble, emphasizing this new shared reference point. The black barriers remain, showing W is still unobservable, but they've found an alternative observable state Q that both can agree on and use as common ground for their conversation.](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/49eff199996d3598f91177b7cd24472cae3d7b680ffbd214.png)

Yay! We've defined all the variables we wanted, and we didn't even exhaust the alphabet.   
  
Anyway, this communication pattern works way better than trying to make claims/asks about things you can't both verify, and you might have meaningfully different models of.[^rzmb9sg99ni]

Summary (slightly spaced repetition)
------------------------------------

To wrap up:

1.  Conflicts often emerge from claims or asks which are directed at things both parties don't agree on. Risky subjects: **the other person's internal state**, and **underspecified or non-verifiable** things.
2.  Sticking to claims/asks about **your own internal state** and **facts about the world you can both check** is remarkably effective at preventing conflict.
3.  The language of Feelings[^o18i8i3pnsr]/Needs[^mzqv1mr0ue]/Observations[^k7ai1ul8bhk]/Requests[^4rfy2i61xex] adds guardrails that make it clear to everyone when you're making claims or asks into someone else's internal state, or about things that are vague or unobservable.

Try it out next time you have a doomy feeling about a conversation, and maybe report back how it goes in the comments :)

Appendix: Speculation on sometimes spectacular successes
--------------------------------------------------------

People tell [wild stories of using NVC to switch people aggressively threatening violence into a calm, reasonable mode](https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/how-a-woman-used-empathy-to-disarm-an-attacker-with-a-knife/), or other similarly dramatic effects.

I have a solid guess as to why this happens. Those people are strongly predicting a fight (and hence claims/demands pushed into their self-model). But then the NVC person massively errors the aggressor's prediction by doing a low probability action (communicating non-violently), and they're now out of distribution.

Confused, they look for signs of what kind of conversation they're in, and... there's a person being reasonable and empathetic in front of them? This brings up patterns in them usually associated with a calm and regulated nervous system. That must mean... they're in an open and respectful conversation??[^ylah8oc6t2p] OK, next token let's try going with that and see if it generates less [surprisal](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/05/book-review-surfing-uncertainty/).

[^xb0rr43ahh]:  And leaves you a line of retreatAlso: only make asks* about observables or universal/terminal needs. This leaves them room to decide how (and whether) to change their internal state to fulfil your underlying request, rather than pre-defining how to get there.*Asks, unlike demands, present information, even if about about needs, as an "ask" mental object the receiver can include in themselves, keeping freedom to choose their response without dissonance. A demand is shaped to require the receiver reject the "demand" mental object, comply with the demand, or experience dissonance in response to having conflicting predictive models.yes i totally cheated and made the tl;dr three four five paragraphs with footnotes. 

[^k52g3tiinqr]: Usually it's taught through examples and somewhat more surface level rules than this guide will emphasise. I expect this form to generalize better for LWers. 

[^gwnwu4wq00q]: Sometimes your self-model is incorrect and needs updating, but 'in the middle of resolving a different conflict' is rarely a good time for this kind of vulnerable process. 

[^74h1t4p1bph]: thank/blame Claude for the diagrams 

[^2fn9oggd0j4]: Professional example: Alice: "I feel disrespected in meetings when I'm interrupted" (interpretation of Bob's state as disrespectful)Relationship example: "I feel abandoned when plans fall through" (interpretation of Bob's state as abandoning) 

[^3zogoojayhj]: P: Bob was struggling to manage ADHD symptoms and was interrupting to make sure he understood key points before they slipped away.R: Bob was dealing with a depressive episode and was afraid of being poor company. 

[^zg8azh3fxac]: P: "I feel tense and my shoulders tighten when I'm interrupted during presentations" (NVC Feeling, subtype sensation)R: "I feel a heaviness in my chest and tears welling up when plans are cancelled" (NVC Feeling, subtype sensation) 

[^o18i8i3pnsr]: NVC True Feelings are internal emotional or sensory states:"I feel sad and heavy in my chest""I feel excited and energized""I feel anxious and my stomach is tight""I feel peaceful and relaxed""I feel angry and my jaw is clenched"NVC False Feelings import claims about things not actually part of your experience, like the other person's state or external things:Abandoned (interpretation that someone left you)Disrespected (interpretation of others' actions)Ignored (interpretation of others' behavior)Manipulated (interpretation of being controlled)Unappreciated (interpretation of others' responses)Misunderstood (interpretation of others' comprehension)Rejected (interpretation of others' actions)Pressured (interpretation of demands)Hurt (assigning blame for your pain, though can be used NVC-compatibly)The key is that Feelings describe just your internal emotional and physical experience, while pseudo-feelings include claims on how others are treating you or what they're doing to you. 

[^mzqv1mr0ue]: NVC Needs are ~terminal or human universal needs:SafetySpaceHarmonySupportOrderUnderstandingRestPurposeConnectionChoiceCreativityBelongingGrowthTrustLearningbut not ways of fulfilling those needs as these build in a specific way of meeting the need (making a demand into the other's self-model, or an implicit ask for an action as if that's the only way to fulfil your need):Attention from your partnerA raise at workTime alone in the morningRegular phone callsHugsPunctualityFeedback on your workA clean houseResponse to emailsSolutions to problemsAgreement from othersPeace and quiet after 9pmProfessional respectValidation of your feelingsRecognition for your efforts 

[^k7ai1ul8bhk]: NVC Observations are specific, factual and measurable:"You arrived at 9:20am when we agreed to meet at 9:00am""This is the third time you've messaged me today""You looked away and began typing while I was speaking""There are five unwashed dishes in the sink""You said 'I don't want to discuss this'"Judgments, evaluations, generalizations are not Observations:"You're always late""You're being needy""You're not listening to me""The kitchen is a mess""You're shutting down the conversation"NVC says Observations could be verified by a recording, they state what happened without adding meaning, labels, or patterns to it. This is sufficient but not always necessary, as for some people more subtle things might actually be observable and not under dispute. 

[^4rfy2i61xex]: NVC Requests are clear, actionable, and outcome focused:"Would you be willing to tell me what you heard me say?""Would you stop talking when I'm presenting?""Would you let me know by 3pm tomorrow if you can't make it?""Would you tell me why you disagree?""Would you stop scheduling meetings during my lunch break?"But not unclear requests, as the status of unactionable/ill defined requests is often disputed, or demands, or asks of internal state, which don't let the receiver have sovereignty over how and whether the request is fulfilled, e.g."Tell me what you heard me say""You need to be more professional""Just listen better""You have to change your attitude""I need you to care more""Be more respectful"A demand makes no allowance to not go along with the ask without rejecting the whole demand-statement, an ask explicitly leaves the option for the person to accept the ask-containing statement while turning down the desired outcome.NVC also suggests using Positive (do) rather than Negative (don't) requests where possible; this seems helpful but is not always practical. 

[^9nw8ik0f34h]: If a claim or the result of an ask is underspecified in ways that might cause divergence, that's an opening for conflict on whether those conditions are fulfilled. "Is Bob lazy?" Depends what you mean by lazy. Did Bob work less than 2 hours per day last week? That leaves less to the ear of a listener. Similarly, hyperbole like "Bob never works" causes failures, as the literal interpretation is ~always false, and that means you're always running on interpretations. 

[^hq68n7uryid]: If a claim or the result of an ask is not observable by all parties, there is an opening for conflict on whether those things happened. Try and cash out your unobservables in observables. NVC says "things that a recording device would see", but this can be adapted to things which all parties genuinely see and don't dispute. Asking Bob to step up and do his share doesn't give clearly defined conditions on whether he's succeeded or not. It might or might not help, but it doesn't give the kind of clarity which will settle the matter and give your future selves criteria to check against. 

[^pi9vgi62wbn]: P: Alice says she's doing most of the project work, while Bob says it's even.R: Alice sees their different spending styles as signs they're growing incompatible, while Bob views it as a normal adjustment period. 

[^rzmb9sg99ni]: P: Instead of debating unmeasurable effort, they can look at story points completed and logged hours from last sprint as observable markers of contribution.R: They look at their joint savings and proportional spending over time to get ground truth on financial changes. 

[^ylah8oc6t2p]: I'd bet at decent odds that this general effect (knocking people out of distribution, then confidently providing an alternate context) lets some people do things likeThe Hell’s Angels, notorious for crashing hippie parties and then fucking everyone up, came to Kesey’s compound, and Kesey…somehow socially hacked them. They ended up behaving like perfect gentlemen the whole time, then left promising to play support for Kesey if he ever needed it.- SSC Book Review: The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test