The NVC system has some useful insights but suffers from a fatal flaw. It punts on the question of where the universal needs come from and the important task of distinguishing between true needs and simple desires. For example, an NVC practitioner could come to you complaining that a particular need is not being met. But by seeing that need as "universal", they've already potentially given up any leverage they might have in a conversation with a rational person.

It seems perfectly healthy (indeed essential in some ways) to develop an ability to distinguish between thoughts and emotions or observations and evaluations. But it's highly suspect to apply an ill-defined term like "universal need" to what could just as easily be described as a "personal preference."

It's not surprising to me that, in this day and age, I would start seeing people regain interest in things like NVC. In these times when everyone has an opinion and everyone is angry, people probably want a quick way to categorize people or ideas as good or bad. Ironically, by relying on vague concepts like "universal needs", NVC ends up being a pretty good system for making blanket judgements. But the real world is not that simple and takes more adaptability and agility to make sense out of.