Mary Mackenzie

It is often easy for us to hear rejection when someone says “no” to us. If we focus on the rejection, we may feel hurt and fail to take the time to understand what is going on with them. However, if we focus on their feelings and needs, we are more likely to uncover what they want and what prevents them from complying with our request.

Say you asked your partner to clean out the truck to prepare for your weekend trip. He says, “No, the game is about to start and I want to watch it.” You could hear this as a rejection or you could hear the “yes” behind his “no” and say, “You’ve been looking forward to watching this game all week, haven’t you?” He may say, “Yeah, I have. And I’d like to watch the game without having other responsibilities. I really want this time to myself.” You could say, “I can really understand the need to relax. I’d like you to have this time to yourself and I’m also worried about getting everything done before our trip. After the game, would you be willing to brainstorm with me how we might get the truck cleaned?”

If we hear what the other person is saying “yes” to (in this case, a relaxing afternoon watching the game), rather than what he is saying “no” to (cleaning the truck instead of watching the game), we are more likely to succeed in getting our needs met and helping the people we love get theirs met too. This is a way of valuing the other’s needs as much as our own and can be a powerful conflict resolution tool.

—Mary Mackenzie, Co-founder NVC Academy

Mary Mackenzie

Have you ever been sitting home reading or watching TV, enjoying your space and peacefulness, when your partner comes home and says something like, “Aren’t the dishes done yet? I am so sick of coming home to a messy house!”, then walks out of the room to take a shower?

It’s easy to feel shock and hurt in such situations, and then feel confused about how to handle it. I suggest that you try empathizing with him by saying something like, “It sounds like you’re really annoyed that the dishes weren’t done by the time you got home because you were hoping the house would be neat?” “Yes! I’m tired and frustrated, and after a hard day at work, I’d really like to come home to a clean house.” “And, on top of the dishes not being done, you’ve really had a rough day?” “Yeah, today was truly awful.” “I get how frustrating it can be at work. How about if I do the dishes while you take a shower, and then can we talk about the dishes? I’m noticing that I simply hate doing dishes and that’s why they aren’t done as often as you’d like. I really want to help you meet your need for orderliness, and I’d also like to meet my needs for ease and fun. Would you be willing to have this conversation after your shower?” “Sure.”

Notice that the first thing she did was empathize, listening to his feelings and needs. Then, when she thought she had heard him, she asked for what she wanted, which was a conversation to discuss both their needs. He was much more willing to have this conversation once his needs were heard, and when he had more confidence that she valued both their needs.

Tempting as it is sometimes to argue with someone who expresses themselves in ways that stimulate pain in us, try to refrain. Arguing is likely to result in both of you feeling hurt and frustrated. By empathizing instead, you both stand a better chance of feeling relief and reaching a peaceful resolution.

—Mary Mackenzie, Co-founder NVC Academy

Mary Mackenzie

I cannot say it enough. Most of us rarely feel truly heard and understood. Empathy, the simple act of hearing someone and focusing your attention on them, can be incredibly healing.

Try to listen for the feelings and needs behind someone’s words. This isn’t always easy, but the results are remarkable. Here’s an example. One of your kids says, “We never do what I want.” That might be hard to hear if you focus on the words he uses and if you think 90 percent of your life is focused on meeting his needs. Take a deep breath and listen for what they are; I’m guessing respect, and a say in decision making. You don’t have to agree with him, by the way. All you’re doing is trying to understand his view of things. You could respond with, “Are you frustrated and want more say in the family’s decision-making process?”

That’s it! Now, carry the conversation through by listening for his feelings and needs and expressing your own. The whole conversation might sound like this, “Yeah, you and Dad always get your own way.” “So, you think we’re only doing what we want without considering what you want?” “Yeah.” “I feel sad about this because I know I spend a lot of time considering your needs, and then often neglecting my own. I guess we both want the same thing, balance and respect. You and I would both like to know that the other one values our needs too. Do you agree with that?” “Yeah, I guess.” “Would you be willing to talk about what we are both hoping for tonight, and maybe brainstorm ways we can both get what we want?” “Okay.”

If we focus on the words, we often miss the point. Listen deeply to the needs the other person is trying convey. Once you understand each other, you will be ready to resolve the situation.

—Mary Mackenzie, Co-founder NVC Academy

Does empathy lead to altruism? The New York Times columnist gets it wrong.

Over the last few days, a lot of people have asked me about David Brooks’ Friday op-ed column in The New York Times on the “limits of empathy.” In it, Brooks argues that empathy is a “sideshow” to moral action. Considering the glut of recent books on empathy—such as Frans de Waal’s The Age of Empathy and Jeremy Rifkin’s The Empathic Civilization—Brooks writes that empathy “has become a way to experience delicious moral emotions without confronting the weaknesses in our nature that prevent us from actually acting upon them.”

Empathy, in other words, is little more than a fad.

Read more…

Tomorrow,  join relationship expert Kelly Bryson for a FREE teleourse entitled The Future of Love. Reimagine your perception of love so you can feel love more deeply, let love in and actually be love. Take this introductory session to determine if the full 6-week course is a good fit for you.

In his article, Mr. Brooks points out that empathy alone is not enough to move people to moral action, epecially if there’s a personal cost involved. He goes on to write:

Nobody is against empathy. Nonetheless, it’s insufficient. These days empathy has become a shortcut. It has become a way to experience delicious moral emotions without confronting the weaknesses in our nature that prevent us from actually acting upon them. It has become a way to experience the illusion of moral progress without having to do the nasty work of making moral judgments. In a culture that is inarticulate about moral categories and touchy about giving offense, teaching empathy is a safe way for schools and other institutions to seem virtuous without risking controversy or hurting anybody’s feelings.

Empathy is a process of opening oneself to deeply hear another person from their perspective. Empathy by itself does not contain an entire moral system upon which to operate one’s life. And very importantly, empathizing with others does not mean I agree with or condone their actions.  If people are using empathy to avoid confronting moral weakness, I would suggest they are misapplying empathy or even practicing something else. My experience is that empathy takes us to the heart of our deepest vulnerabilities, empathy does not avoid anything true.

Nonetheless, by itself empathy does not necessarily compel us to moral action. There exists however, a system of communication that integrates empathy with clear concrete observation, honest expression and taking action on our deepest values. It’s called Nonviolent Communication or NVC.

I recommend this book: Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life

Also, you can get introductions to NVC from the NVC Academy:

Practical Skills for Successful Communication

Introduction to Nonviolent Communication

The Basics of Nonviolent Communication (NVC)

Incidentally, I would argue with Mr. Brooks’ contention that nobody is against empathy. Perhaps he missed viewing the confirmation hearings for Justice Sotomayor.

There’s likely a connection between the lack of empathy and the suburban nature of the conservative base. Research shows people tend to be more bigoted toward gays and those of different races when they have no personal connection with those people. Suburbs are known for breeding social homogeneity that does shelter people from humanizing those who are a little different than them. Beyond that, suburbs make it harder to develop a well-connected social life altogether.  Without that, it’s difficult to keep your empathy muscles, aka your ability to look at others and feel a common humanity with them. If you don’t use empathy, you lose it.

My sense is that while the isolation of suburbia might lead to reduced empathy in residents, it seems that reality TV began as a result of the loss of empathy more than being an initial cause. I’m unsure these programs would have flourished unless an appetite for such pulp was already present in viewers. Perhaps reality TV provides a feedback loop for support and further desensitization of the suffering of others.

Read more…