1• Transform "against" thinking into "for" thinking

We are culturally used to saying what we don't like or don't want, but we have very little training in imagining what we want to replace it. Thinking 'for' opens up other, sometimes unsuspected perspectives, which are not necessarily the opposite of what we don't want.

Examples (with subjective interpretation):

I'm not made for school ---> I would like to feel more respected and recognised at school.
I don't want to do the housework ---> I would like to live in a clean place and to make sure that housework is shared out fairly.
I don't want to stop smoking ---> I would like to find a new way to relax and enjoy myself that is healthy and cheap.
I am against refugees ---> I would like to live in a society that guarantees a standard of living, decent jobs and efficient public services for my social class.

The potential of this reversal is that it makes it possible to assert constructive needs that no one can question and which are therefore more likely to be examined sincerely and effectively.

2• Convert identity concepts to actions or behaviours

Transform state verbs (to be, etc) into action or possession verbs (to do, to have, etc):

I am an ecologist ---> I support an ecological way of life
He is the boss ---> He has the command
I am incompetent ---> I failed at something I undertook
You are toxic ---> You behave in a toxic way

The advantage of these changes of expression is to get used to the fact that the problems don't come from what people are but from what they choose to do, which means choices that can be changed. By using fewer identity verbs, we can get away from projections that give the impression of being definitive.
Another advantage is that when opponents are criticised for what they do rather than who they are, it gives them a little more chance to open up to that criticism.

Extreme example : They are murderers ---> These people committed murders

This change can give the impression of reducing the accusations by detaching people from their faults. In fact, the essence of the justice ethic of non-violent communication removes the dimension of moral or punitive judgement* and seeks only to change problematic or dangerous behaviour. But if we think beyond this impression of indulgence, we realise that focusing on acts and not on the identity of individuals also makes it possible to imagine that everyone can potentially commit reprehensible acts, without stigmatising good or bad profiles. In the end, this vision is both more humanist and more vigilant, and therefore fairer and more effective.

* No moral or punitive judgement does not mean "no restrictive measures". Imprisonment can always be an option if it is judged to be the most appropriate way of preventing new dangerous acts from being committed. The important thing is to seek only effectiveness and to abandon any desire to do harm in return.



3• Avoid spontaneous written communication on controversial subjects

Mastering the art of writing is something that needs to be worked on: writers, essayists and journalists don't just happen. The sophistication and precision of written language can raise the level of human intelligence, but to realise its full potential requires a great deal of culture, experience and dedication, both from the author and the reader.

Try this experiment: read any online conversation (or your own) and force yourself to imagine these 3 intentions in succession:
- a friendly one
- a neutral one
- a negative/despising/aggressive one
If the sentences you read do not include any specific words (or emoji) explicitly indicating the intention or tone, you will notice that without knowing the context of the communication or personal relationship, it is easy to perceive these 3 contradictory intentions. This is the obvious weakness of written language when it is not handled with care.

This problem is combined with the fact that we tend to be attracted by scandal and conflict (the success of social networks is based on this). So because of the misleading effect of interpreting written messages, a major trap is to be too quick to interpret certain statements as personal attacks or against our values, even when these messages are objectively respectful and nuanced. When we are dominated by negative emotions we unreasonably project aggression from others, and like a trigger, our reactions can contaminate them in return, leading to conflicts possibly based on misunderstandings.

This temptation to project negativity is a human reflex, but if we are well aware of it, all we have to do is take the opposite view by forcing ourselves to interpret the messages as if they were positive. And this attitude is beneficial even if the initial communication was indeed disrespectful, because not escalating is also the best way of trying to resolve a conflict and get the other person to listen to reason.

In polemical situations, if you need to communicate with someone quickly, avoid writing, because even if you think you've chosen and considered all your words carefully, there's little chance that the person you're writing to will have the same objectivity, especially if that person is in a distrustful attitude. So give preference to oral communication, or even better, a face-to-face meeting. The modulation of the voice and the rhythm of the spoken word transmit sensations that sound much more accurate and avoid many of the projection errors of written language. When communication is also face-to-face, the expression on the face and the movement of the body, arms and hands further refine this communication. What's more, the speaker can see in real time the reactions of her/his communication on the body and face of the listener, which improves the quality of the exchange even further.

Of course, this advice will not prevent communication failures, but it will certainly give much better chances than spontaneous writing.



4• Don't judge single sentences too quickly

As described in point 3, there is a good chance of mistaking the tone and level of subtlety of a short spontaneous message (humour, degree, irony) and therefore of mistaking its real intentions. What's more, trying to sum up a thought in a sentence is very tricky because words don't resonate in the same way with everyone. That's why it's always best to look at what has been said or written before and after the sentence in question. Context always helps to clarify a statement, whereas a few words in a single sentence (especially if they are chosen spontaneously) leave too much room for interpretation, especially if you use very imperfect and ambiguous words like 'normal', which I systematically warn against using.

Example with the word "normal":
This word primarily means what is the norm, i.e. the majority or the habit. However, it is commonly associated with what is correct or just, with the assumption that the norm is essentially associated with positive things.

Example of a paradox:
Discrimination is "not normal" (in the sense of being "acceptable"). Yet it can also be said that discrimination is "normal" (in the sense that it has always been historically present). I've used an example that is deliberately simple to understand, because (I hope) everyone agrees on it, so there's no risk of misinterpreting this kind of sentence. But when a subject is more controversial, the word "normal" can be misleading, it's a bit of a reflexive catch-all word that can quickly be misinterpreted, and also because of conflicting projections.

Example of a preferable transformation :
This is not normal ---> This is not acceptable / desirable
It is normal ---> It is common / It is the norm

So whether it's for this word or others, we shouldn't rely 100% on the words and expressions we hear and read, and always leave the door open to other possible interpretations.