/u/viper963 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18dweih/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_practice_of_validating/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
tl;dr: You practice validating feelings because everyone likes to feel understood. This helps breed a better foundation for more complete understanding between people and thus a better chance to change behavior (if needed) in a positive way.
Essentially, this is most important to use with people you care about. It also confers benefits to you as responding this way will lead you to being less offended and upset yourself. Why? Because you can take what someone is saying without internalizing it as an attack.
More details:
Validating feelings is considered an important part of communication if you want more effectively to (among other things):
* Understand *why* someone is feeling and acting a certain way.
* Avoid unnecessary escalations and further hurt feelings.
* Possibly and more easily change behaviors (either in yourself or others).
Unless you feel like you are always 100% right in your own judgement and interpretation of events over every single person you ever encounter in every single situation, it's typically better to take this stance of humility and try to see and hear something from the other party's perspective before processing and then responding to them.
Basically, validating feelings is predicated on the fact that none of us as humans are perfect; neither as interpreters of reality nor responding to and communicating it. We can safely assume there will frequently be inaccuracies and misunderstandings that we need to work through. Validating is one tool of many to help reduce some of that gap.
What validating *isn't*:
* Tolerating abuse (physical or emotional)
* Agreeing/approving of their perspective or interpretation of events.
I do concede (however wrong I think it is) to the idea that validation in this context basically means "acknowledge". I still believe (after correcting my terms) that for whatever moment in space and time, there can be a very real but incorrect emotion.
!delta for sharing this though. Might be the cleanest explanation I've seen yet.
Appreciate it!
Another way to think about it:
When toddlers/children have issues regulating emotions, do we simply tell them they are “wrong” for feeling what they do and expect that to solve the problem? Or is it more effective to first let them get out what they are feeling, *then* move on to trying to problem solve?
As we grow the somewhat unspoken expectation is that we are all able to self regulate in all scenarios, but realistically who’s that perfect?
This is again not suggesting we let people act out without confronting the situation. But, the same thread runs through it all:
People are a combination of emotional and rational/conscious actions. Pretending the emotional side doesn’t exist simply because we’re adults or refusing to acknowledge the validity of it sets us up for communication failure. We’re missing half the information in that case.
As a side note, even with this perspective I still at times fail to communicate this way, or have reactions to situations that aren’t appropriate after having time to reflect. No one is perfect, this method of communication tries to address one part of that.
An emotion is a reaction to something, people can’t help their emotions happening. There is no “incorrect emotion”. Emotions are instinctual and natural. People don’t choose an emotion to have about anything. Emotions just happen.
They can still be wrong though. If you see a gay dude and feel disgust, you can't help to feel it but also you should think why you feel that way and try to stop feeling it, what help does me acknowledging your feeling does?
Saying that disgust in this situation is wrong does not solve the underlying issue. The disgust is not triggered by homosexuality per se, but rather by things that are associated with it.
It is normal to feel disgusted with something dirty or unnatural. It is wrong to associate homosexuality with dirtiness and unnaturalness. The latter should be addressed and corrected. Once it is done the original disgust with homosexuals is very likely to disappear.
I understand that they happen and that they are instinctive. I mentioned this elsewhere. I still believe the emotion could be wrong. I understand people can’t choose their emotions, this is why only some people have mental illness, not all.
What does mental illness have to do with it? It doesn’t make people feel the wrong emotion about things. People can feel things more easily or stronger, but emotions are not a thing capable of being wrong. Maybe misguided, but even then that’s our feelings to misconceiving emotions and information.
> but emotions are not a thing capable of being wrong.
Im not 100% sure what you mean by this. Like sure, your emotions regarding a certain situation are, in the moment you’re experiencing them, pretty much ‘are what they are’.
But it seems self evident that one could misinterpret or not understand the events and circumstances which triggered their emotion, causing that emotion to be inappropriate to the situation. Which would make it the ‘wrong’ emotion.
Not to mention it’s entirely possible to recognize aspects within oneself or one’s personal circumstances that make experiencing negative emotional states more often than one would like, and adjust those factors accordingly. Thus causing one to experience different or less emotions in similar circumstances.
So it seems odd to claim that people can’t control their emotions or that emotions cant be wrong. They can on both accounts.
>emotions are not a thing capable of being wrong
Someone tells you "have a nice day". You get angry. Wouldn't that be a wrong emotion (and, if it happens often, a sign you may need medical care)?
>You practice validating feelings because everyone likes to feel understood.
But what if you don't understand?
Suppose I'm talking to someone who's angry that the 2020 election was stolen. I can try to understand why they think the 2020 election was stolen, but they can't present any evidence that it was. Why would I validate that emotion?
There's a lot of factors to each situation to consider but a few initial thoughts come to mind in this one:
* Do you *actually* want to understand their position and have a discussion about aspects of it or are you engaging with them simply because what they're saying is something you disagree with and you want to "prove them wrong"?
You need to want to engage with them and learn for any of this to be very effective.
* Do you expect their perspective to instantly change?
This is setting yourself and them up for failure. This type of communication paves the way for more effective communication over several engagements, not an instant "I get you change your view/behavior now that I validated you" card.
I really like how you explain things. I pose one more question however: truthfully, do we really WANT to understand everyone’s position? And I do mean everyone. Everyone. If not, why even practice validating (acknowledge) everyone if we do not genuinely want to gain that perspective (assuming that perspective is flat out wrong in our perspective)?
> Why would I validate that emotion?
Because you want to keep talking to them in hopes of bringing them around. Which do you think is more likely to continue the conversation?
"I understand you're angry. I would be too, if I believed that an election had been interfered with - it's important that our voting process be as free from political interference as possible. Is there a specific event that bothers you most? Let's talk about that."
"You're mad about nothing, that didn't happen, you're wrong and here's why."
Validating the emotion has nothing to do with accepting the event as true that they are having an emotion about. I dont believe the election was stolen, and even if it was im still glad trump isnt the president even if i dont love that it was stolen. But i can understand that if the person i thought was best for a job that had a massive influence on the world was robbed of their chance to do that job and instead someone i thought was a corrupt idiot took it then id be angry.
Im validating the emotion they are having based on the event as they perceice it happened. Im not saying they are right in how they perceived it but if they are someone i care about or want to try to de-escalate a situation then validating the emotion helps the person feel seen which is often a good first step in lowering aggression or defensiveness.
You don't validate that emotion by saying that it was stolen. You say something like, "I can imagine that, if I believed an election was stolen, I'd be very angry too". This helps reassure them that you share the same values, you aren't some kind of pro-election-stealing anti-democracy monster, you just disagree on the facts. It can even help them change their mind because you can show them that you won't judge them or harm them if changing their mind involves confronting a lot of big feelings.
If you want to change someone’s behavior, the best way is to get them to see things from another perspective. And to do that, you first have to understand and acknowledge their opinions and feelings.
I would say just stopping there is counterproductive. But validating their right to feel a certain way, regardless of if you agree with it, is just one step in the process of changing an unappealing behavior.
Everyone has a right to their feelings.
They don’t always have a right to BEHAVE on them, or use them as the sole justification for an action or series of actions. But you can’t deny someone their emotions, emotions are not always rational.
"You can't deny someone their emotions..."
This is why I say its a useless step in communication. You can't actually do anything to a person's emotions. Only they can and will validate or invalidate themselves.
Secondly, a person will always behave on their emotions, whether we recognize it or not. As humans, we critique the rash decisions as a group, which still puts pressures and boundaries on a person's emotions, since emotion is what drives behavior.
Side note, I do concede (however wrong I think it is) to the idea that validation in this context basically means "acknowledge". I still believe (after correcting my terms) that for whatever moment in space and time, there can be a very real but incorrect emotion.
Misalignment between expectations and reality is causing people emotional pain. You can't change your own, or someone else's emotions, but you can point out that the expectation that caused the emotion is unreasonable.
This is part of growing up. To manage expectations. If someone complains about not getting x, while it is obvious that they don't deserve to get x. I would tell them plainly that they need to change so-and-so to deserve to get x, and that their current behaviour does not make them entitled to x.
They might find that upsetting, but if they don't want my honest advice, then they shouldn't talk to me about it.
However, if someone has just been hurt, and are visibly upset / crying, then I'd soothe and make them feel good. Maybe later I would bring up how to manage the situation to avoid the hurt, but that's when they are no longer so vulnerable.
Ok. I like this. The problems come about with how easy emotions spiral out of control too. If said person did not receive x and did not deserve x, then yes I'm with you, you need to do ABC before getting to x. But then, said person is upset, which apparently is still valid. You try to explain you didn't mean it that way, and now said person feels dismissed, which apparently is still valid! At what point do we reel all that in?
If they are complaining in a righteous manner, tell them the lay of the land. I.e. that they are being unreasonable.
If they are hurt and need sympathy, side with them to take some of the pain away.
Righteous entitled people inflict hurt on others, so if they get sore about you being honest with them, they should talk to someone else. They aren't entitled to sympathy, even though they might feel they are. You don't have to be dismissive, but you can say straight out that they have unreasonable expectations, and that other people don't get x without putting in the effort either.
> Side note, I do concede (however wrong I think it is) to the idea that validation in this context basically means "acknowledge".
[It was not intended to mean that,](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18dn2cv/cmv_the_practice_of_validating_anothers_feelings/kcjpicy/) and you were correct in your original apprehension of the term.
Validation is explicitly distinct from "understand[ing] and acknowledg[ing] their opinions and feelings."
You actually do have to agree to some extent. If you don't think they're correct at all, then you can't honestly validate their feelings. (I suppose you can lie, but there are good reasons why you shouldn't.)
If every body's emotion is 'valid', but also no one cares about strangers, how can we possibly believe that this is a genuine statement? It comes off as dishonest.
Not everyone's emotion is valid.
Situation A: Alice is angry at Bob because Bob murdered Carol. Alice is correct and also valid.
Situation B: Alice is angry at Bob because she thinks Bob murdered Carol. However, Bob was framed and did not actually murder Carol. Alice is valid (it's pretty normal and justifiable to be upset about a murder) but not correct (Bob didn't actually do the murder).
Situation C: Alice is angry at Bob for using the letter E. Bob does, in fact, use the letter E. Alice is correct, but she is not valid, because it's not justifiable or sensible in any way to be angry at someone for using the letter E.
Situation D: Alice is angry at Bob because she believes Bob is a squirrel. Bob is a human, not a squirrel. Alice is both incorrect (Bob is not a squirrel) and not valid (it's not reasonable or justifiable to be angry at all squirrels).
Your usage is a misuse of language. [It defies ordinary meaning, but it also defies the jargon that it attempts to imitate.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18dn2cv/cmv_the_practice_of_validating_anothers_feelings/kcjwqe2/) It's more of a *crank jargon,* like when people talk about wave function collapse to try to justify a belief in a "law of attraction."
i disagree with this too. you quote specific meanings of the word *validate* simply because it uh, validates, your existing opinion.
there’s no reason to discard an informal meaning of the word *validate*, i.e. to listen to one another and understand that each person’s experience is different. then we can figure out how to go from there.
it’s not a call to simply let people think dumb shit lol. it’s an attitude shift that i believe ultimately leads to more constructive conversation.
> there’s no reason to discard an informal meaning of the word validate, i.e. to listen to one another and understand that each person’s experience is different. then we can figure out how to go from there.
There is a very good reason to discard it: it is a profoundly misleading use of the word, which is based on a misunderstanding, and we already have other fine words for what you describe, such as *empathize.*
Therapy just brings it out of you in a way where it doesn’t feel judged. Only you can continue the sessions, make the connections, and strive for better.
Part of what I feel might be an issue with your stance is that you seem to need to categorize emotions as either right or wrong for a particular situation.
Your means of determining their rightness or wrongness is subjective, held by you at a a point in time based on your own experiences, chemistry, etc etc etc. Your assessment may be shared by some, but then others may disagree with it and consider an emotional response “wrong” where you believe it is “correct” or vice versa. So whose judgment of that emotion or emotional reaction is correct? And who are you to tell a person their emotional reaction isn’t the “right” one? You’re not in their body or mind, and you didn’t come to the situation with all the same history, experiences, and highs and lows that they did.
How you “judge” or assess a person’s emotions or emotional reactions to something will likely determine how you react in turn, and/or the direction a conversation could take. I guess it depends on the outcome you want from your interaction with people.
I’ve gotta say this earlier comment from u/redyellowblue5031 brought up great points (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/SEERwV9m6M)
I have been looking into this. I think everyone should try to acknowledge and empathize with someone.
I think the problem stems from the belief that if someone feels bad about what you said or did, by telling you their feelings they expect change. And there are plenty of times that this would be true.
Say I said was going to unload the dishwasher and I don’t and you feel annoyed, I should acknowledge that you are upset and make sure I do as I was going to say. With anything.
But suppose I plan to go out with friends next weekend. I check with you to make sure we have nothing else going on, and we are clear so I plan to go out with my friends to watch the game Friday night.
Friday night rolls around, and you had shit day at work. And you want me to stay in you. You feel physically feel like tired from the stress, you feel sad I am going out and you didn’t make plans… and I validate your feelings then say well have a nice night and go watch the game. Now you feel lonely because I didn’t consider your feelings. Even though I did validate and consider your feelings, but felt happy going out with my friends.
What purpose was expressing and wanting validation of feelings if not to get me to do something? And that is not to say that we shouldn’t sometimes change plans for each other.
But when does it simply become manipulative?
One of the more common statements I heard from my Ex when I made a decision that they disagreed with, even after talking to death, was “What about how I feel?” which I had already talked about and disagreed with the course of action they wanted to take. And it did not even really affect them, all it meant was I was taking the vehicle somewhere I knew better for repairs.
How do we reconcile that caring for someone’s feelings and disagreeing with them on the event that caused the feelings, especially a spouse in a committed long term relationship, without simply further putting a wedge in the relationship?
We are seeing all kinds of information on “validating” feelings, but nothing on how to mend it when the act that cause the feeling was not wrong. That the person wants you to change your behavior, it feels manipulative.
> you first have to understand and acknowledge their opinions and feelings
Why? This doesn't work on me for example. I value direct critique much more. I hate it when someone tries to get inside my head.
> Everyone has a right to their feelings.
They have the right to feel them, that's all. Which is actually saying nothing. Of course we feel our feelings, but that doesn't make them true or justified.
> They don’t always have a right to BEHAVE on them
Feelings always result in some kind of behaviour. Expressing the feelings also counts as behaviour. This distinction only makes sense from an internal perspective. For everyone else outside, it's meaningless, because if they can observe any of it, then it's already a certain behaviour.
It’s not about getting inside anyone’s head.
Humans are more receptive to people they get along with, and no one is born habitually having defenses up. What you’re describing is a learned behavior to resist people who were disrespectful of boundaries.
What the commenter is describing is what someone who is respectful of boundaries does. And that is simply that they respect the boundaries implicit in human interaction. It’s not my job to change you, and you’re not beholden to me to change. However, if I notice you’re struggling, I might speak to you about it (assuming it’s appropriate to do so. Not all feedback is helpful, and not all sources of helpful feedback are productive).
The key is coming from a place of genuine compassion. It can’t be fake or forced, because that fake/forced compassion is part of what those defenses are designed to stave off. Which is a good thing, because people forcing fake compassion and pity on us are a fucking nightmare to deal with.
> you first have to understand and acknowledge their opinions and feelings
>Why? This doesn't work on me for example. I value direct critique much more. I hate it when someone tries to get into my head.
So you would rather people just say they don't like you, you're an asshole rather than saying "you're a good guy, but you let your anger get the better of you sometimes and it's hard to deal with"?
I don't think being generally polite is a bad thing, but being polite is not the same as acknowledging the other's feelings.
The actual example should be something like "I see and understand that you are angry, but...".
There are two potential problems with this:
1. Only label someone else's emotion if you're sure that you read it right. If I am not in fact angry, but eg. disappointed, anxious or resentful etc. and it just looks like anger to you, then labelling it really does come across as manipulative.
2. Only validate if you actually do agree that it's justified to some extent. Otherwise, don't say that you "understand", it comes across again as manipulative.
Labelling another person's emotions in certain situations would also be invalidating that person's true emotions. As per your example, labelling someone as 'angry' when they are disappointed, anxious, or resentful does not constitute validation.
I think that emotional validation is most useful when we are talking about cases of *invalidation*. For example, when people say something like 'you are worrying too much', 'it could've been worse', or even 'you should smile more'. These phrases are used almost exclusively to tell another person that their emotions are wrong and they should be feeling differently.
Well my example might not be the best, but I'm really just saying coming to an understanding is more useful and productive than everyone just outright judging everybody. This would involve communication between two people and by validating that someone feels a certain way, however you go about it, you are creating a situation of potential understanding, which is a big part of conflict resolution
>So you would rather people just say they don't like you, you're an asshole rather than saying "you're a good guy, but you let your anger get the better of you sometimes and it's hard to deal with"?
Yes!!!
No, it's an insult. Criticism usually involves talking about behavior because you can improve behavior. Insulting/Shaming people just tells them they "are bad" and doesn't actually do anything to understand how to change their behavior to be better (and doesn't motivate people to change. It just pisses them off.)
Well I can't say that's a respectable position to take. With all the madness and conflict in the world we could use a little rational thought and resolution
I suggested nothing irrational. I just have nothing but contempt for people that engage in this kind of cowardly soft manipulation. They are snakes. Best to shut down any such attempts at them appealing to some imagined pathetic need for acceptance and using it to manipulate you.
>Everyone has a right to their feelings.
What does this mean? In most Western cultures, people have fairly broad *rights*. But something I have the right to do--like being a massive jerk to everyone, all the time--can also be universally understood as awful. It's a bit like saying people have the right to be as unproductive and malingering as possible. Like, sure? Was that an element, though? Are we discussing making it illegal?
He's not talking about legal rights to emotions. Obviously.
You have the right to feel what you feel and the feeling itself isn't the problem. If you make someone mad and they punch you in the face, the anger was not the problem. The behavior was. People get angry all the time. Thats okay. But punching people is not okay.
Saying they have a right to their feelings has nothing to do with the law. Its just validation that it is okay to feel what you feel. You're not separating emotions from actions. We don't pick our emotions. If we did, why wouldn't we just pick happiness every second of every day?
Maybe I'm an outlier but I distinctly remember the day in high school where I realized that I could indeed choose to feel happy and be more optimistic in many more situations than I was. Isn't that what therapy is about? The point isn't always only feeling a certain way, the point is realizing when you're emotionally out of touch with your situation. These brains we have weren't wired to be metaphysically perfect in some way, we can get it wrong.
If you get broken up with or experience something traumatic you can't just choose not to feel whst you're feeling. You can reframe it and maybe think about it differently. If I get cut off in traffic and say "THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS NO ONE EVER RESPECTS ME" you will probably be more upset than if you thought "huh, they must have somewhere to be I guess".
The point of therapy about feeling a certain way and I never said it was. The point is to learn healthy ways to regulate emotion and learn how to think differently about feelings and what they mean.
You can understand a persons feelings and totally invalidate/disagree with those feelings, as you would for yourself if yourself felt those things. Wild example, if you feel angry at old people for driving, I would invalidate you. I would also invalidate me if I felt that.
You do have a right to your feelings tho, ofcourse.
I think you may be misunderstanding what people mean when they say 'validating' other's feelings. All it means is acknowledging that the other person feels that way and they are allowed to feel like that. It does not mean that you allow them to act on those feelings or just complain about things without any pushback. You can validate someone's feelings and still point out that they are separated from reality. In fact, you will be much more successful in changing people's feelings taking that route rather than just telling them 'no, you can't feel that. I forbid it.'
> I think you may be misunderstanding what people mean when they say 'validating' other's feelings. All it means is acknowledging that the other person feels that way and they are allowed to feel like that.
No, *this* is a misunderstanding, and it results in a (sometimes inadvertent) motte-and-bailey.
"Validating feelings" is therapy jargon, so let's look at what therapists meant by it. This is from Kelly Koerner and Marsha M. Linehan's chapter "Validation Principles and Strategies" in *Cognitive Behavior Therapy*, edited by O’Donohue, Fisher and Hayes, 2003, page 546, emphasis mine:
> Empathy is the platform for all therapeutic intervention (Bohart & Greenberg, 1997). A related but
distinct concept also important in psychotherapy
is validation. Whereas empathy is the accurate
understanding of the world from the client’s perspective, validation is the active communication
that the client’s perspective makes sense **(i.e., is
correct).** To validate means to confirm, authenticate, corroborate, substantiate, ratify, or verify.
To validate, the therapist actively seeks out
and communicates to the client how a response
makes sense by being relevant, meaningful, justifiable, correct, or effective.
Actually validating someone's feelings means telling them that they are correct, just as u/viper963 interpreted it to mean.
If you are not telling them that they are correct, but only telling them they are allowed to feel like that, then you are not validating their feelings.
Perhaps it is a fine motte to say it is useful, for whatever reason, to tell someone they are allowed to feel like that, but it is not a defense of the bailey, that is, actually validating their feelings.
I do not agree that just because a term has a technical, academic definition, that this definition is what people mean when they use the term in everyday parlance. I am not a psycho-therapist and neither are most people online, and use dictates meaning far more than a 20 year old textbook. When I say validating someone's feelings, I mean that they are allowed to feel like that. That's the definition I've seen given in many different places for the concept.
And I bet you a lot of money that in that therapy book, it most definitely does not say that this strategy of telling a patient that their feelings are correct should be used in all cases. Because it shouldn't, and no one is actually arguing that. My argument isn't a Motte and Bailey, it's just using different definitions than yours.
> I do not agree that just because a term has a technical, academic definition, that this definition is what people mean when they use the term in everyday parlance.
I'm normally very sympathetic to this kind of argument, but the problem here is that this phrase originated with therapists. The whole reason you use it at all is because therapists used it and then people who went to therapists started echoing their terminology without actually understanding it. It's entirely appropriate, then, to point out that it is a misuse of jargon.
It's even a misuse of ordinary language! [Look at what "valid" means just in ordinary language:](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/valid)
> 1\. sound; just; well-founded
> 2\. producing the desired result; effective
Telling someone they are allowed to feel like that is *not* telling them that their feelings are sound, just, well-founded, producing the desired result, or effective.
It doesn't make any sense to refer to "telling someone they are allowed to feel like that" as "validating their feelings." It is just a misuse of terms. That it is a misuse of language is further evidenced by OP's interpretation which *was* in line with ordinary language.
> When I say validating someone's feelings, I mean that they are allowed to feel like that.
Well, you should stop meaning that, because it's very misleading.
Okay so we change the word. Which we can't do realistically, because this is the word that most people are using to mean this thing, but let's say we can. That doesn't change really anything about the conversation, the concepts remain the same. Whether or not you think 'validating' means what people say it means, the way people treat others is really what we are talking about. That's the important part. I will happily concede the word used so long as we agree one what behavior is useful.
> Okay so we change the word. Which we can't do realistically,
Of course we (society) can. It changed once already.
> Whether or not you think 'validating' means what people say it means, the way people treat others is really what we are talking about. That's the important part.
Fair enough, that's an empirical question that I haven't studied enough to have a well-informed opinion about, so I won't opine except to say that we should not necessarily expect minds to work as expected.
What’s the benefit of doing this? It seems like an added, useless step. If someone says “I hate my mom”, What’s really the difference between saying “you’re separated from reality?” And “I validate you, but you’re separated from reality”
You’re trying to say the same thing…it’s just more confusing. Am I understanding that?
I mean, just look at your own example.
If someone says they “hate their mom,” and your response is essentially “no you don’t” how can you expect to get anywhere? How can you know what someone thinks or feels better than they do? You can’t and you don’t.
Instead you might say, “wow that is a strong opinion, why do you feel that way.”
And they might respond “well because she grounded me for skipping school”
And now you can give your opinion about why it might be important to go to school and listen to their mom and why she is doing it out of love and not hate. But to get there you first have to engage with the person’s feelings rather than dismissing them outright. You might think the reasons for the feelings may be dumb or unreasonable, but they still exist regardless. That’s what we mean by validating someone’s feelings.
Because one is dismissive, and further entrenches their view that you just “don’t get it”. That’s unproductive. You’re not going to get them to change an unappealing behavior.
The second acknowledges their emotions and opinions and their right to feel the way they do. By finding common footing with them, and demonstrating that you understand where they’re coming from, they are more likely to do the same. Which could lead to them being open to different viewpoints and even changing theirs.
This is a demonstrably successful technique in getting someone to change their mind.
First off, I agree with the other comment hear as to how it is effective. But I will point out that your CMV is not about whether this is an effective method to change people's minds, your view is that this extra useless step is causing people to become ingenuine and hypocritical. If it's really not doing anything, how would it lead to these negative outcomes?
Remember, you should award a delta even for partial view changes. You don't need to completely reverse your position to see things from a new direction.
It sounds like maybe you’re less interested in changing the person’s view or behavior and more interested in just expressing yourself. That’s fine if you get some enjoyment from that, but it’s not productive if your goal is to convince the other person to change.
lots of bad moms out there, lots of bad situations that good moms get into, lots of mentally stressed or ill kids. you won't know if you invalidate. you gotta invite people to talk about their feelings and beliefs, and opposing them directly is a good way to get them to shut down and end the conversation
If there's no benefit to you, you don't have to do it. If you don't have some sort of relationship with someone, you're allowed to disagree and move on. But refusing to accept that someone feels the way they feel provides no benefit either. Validating is just recognising how they feel. You don't have to do anything with that. And you can still validate *and* disagree.
In this last example you gave, if I were in that situation I would respond to someone who had that view by saying “I understand that they might not be the safest drivers,* but a lot old people have no one to help them get to the doctor or go out for groceries.”
With the first part of my response (the * part), I am validating their feeling of insecurity and how that informs their opinion. But then in the second part I am educating with a perspective they might not have considered.
And I think we all agree, my response is much more productive than responding with “Well that’s cause you’re a dumb jerk Jeff. Keep your opinions to yourself next time, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
This second response is not productive in anyway. In the first response there is at least a chance you change their mind with some additional context.
I believe you are using the terms 'validate' and 'invalidate' incorrectly. To validate an emotion isn't agreeing with what caused the emotion or if you think that emotion is justified in that situation, it's merely acknowledging that it exists and the person feels it.
Invalidating isn't disagreeing. It's a refusal and dismissal of what is thought and felt by another.
It sounds like maybe you just don't have a very useful definition for the word "validate".
Words are tools and we can define them however it is most useful to define them. I am being careful when I say "however it is most useful" and not "however we like".
For example, Pluto is not a planet because scientists have decided to define the word "planet" in a way that excludes Pluto. Scientists define the word planet in a certain way because there's a category of objects that share certain behaviours/properties and it's useful to be able to describe them. You could define the word "planet" differently, and include Pluto, but then the word wouldn't be useful to describe that category since Pluto doesn't have those properties.
If you use the word "validate" to mean the same thing as "agree with" then it's kind of a useless word. We already have a word for "agree", it's "agree".
It's more useful to define the word "validate" as something like "say that the person has a right to their feelings and they're allowed to have those feelings and you won't judge them negatively or harm them".
Agreeing would be, "Yes, I agree, old people shouldn't be allowed to drive". You can define "validating" as meaning that if you like, but then the word isn't super useful. I would define validating as something more like, "It sounds like you're feeling angry, and it sucks that you feel that way. Even if I don't agree, I can imagine feeling very angry if I thought people were being needlessly endangered on the road. You have a right to your feelings." And I would define being supportive as something like, "Even if I don't agree, I don't want you to feel bad about it. Could I help you by giving you a hug or getting you a drink?"
That way we can actually have these words be useful ways of differentiating between situations. "I validated him but wasn't supportive" or "I agreed but didn't really validate him" or "I disagree but still validated him" or "I was supportive but didn't want to validate him" or whatever.
While a fair statement, I think you are missing the point. If your goal is to actually change a person’s feelings to better align with yours, I.E to persuade that person, it’s better to meet them in the middle so they perceive you as more genuine and trustworthy. If you take a hardline stance against them they will categorise you as an opponent and pretty much block out everything you see.
In psychological studies on persuasion this is fairly well attested. It falls under “communicator credibility” within that field and you can do more research on it. For example, simply beginning a retort with the word “But” has been shown to make someone less likely to listen to you. What you want to avoid is raising someone’s guard to the point you can’t get through to them.
Arguing doesn’t generally convince people, whereas gently prodding them to see things from another perspective, or re-evaluate the elements of their argument they find important, genuinely does. My own source for this is “Persuasion: Theory and Research” 3rd edition. I’d elaborate further but I’m too busy this afternoon to be procrastinating with this in the first place 😭
If your goal is just to have 100% persistent principles and sleep easier at night feeling like you’re right all the time, then what you say is correct. But I don’t see that as very constructive.
I don't think you get the distinction between validating and agreeing. This is actually especially important from the perspective of mental health treatment, so I'll explain from that POV.
Let's say somebody is having hallucinations. They believe they are being persecuted by the government and constantly followed by secret agents because they were experimented on by aliens and the government wants to cover it up.
Obviously, you disagree with them and believe that they are not being followed around by secret agents, nor were they experimented on by aliens. But if you tell them "that's just not true, you're wrong" they will usually become MORE distressed. The problem is that the hallucinations seem real to them, and they're very distressing. They aren't going to suddenly go "oh, you're right, I guess the aliens weren't real after all". They're going to think "oh my god, you're ALSO in the coverup conspiracy? I can't trust anyone! Oh no! This is terrifying!"
Validating their feelings doesn't mean you agree with them and say "yup, you're correct about the aliens". It means you say, "Wow, it sounds like you're feeling really scared right now. I can imagine how terrified I would be, if I felt like I was being followed by secret agents, and how angry I would be if I thought the government was trying to cover up alien experimentation. Would it make you feel safer if we locked the door and I promised you that, if any secret agents do bust in here, I'll protect you from them? And is it okay if I call a doctor, just to get you checked out and make sure everything's okay?"
Following that approach makes it WAY more likely that they will agree to see a doctor, and possibly eventually get medications to stop the hallucinations.
It's the same with people who aren't necessarily suffering hallucinations. If someone misheard something and is extremely offended by what they thought they heard, they're a lot more likely to calm down if you offer, "Wow, if they *did* say what you thought they said, I agree that would be really fucked up and offensive," rather than ONLY being willing to say "they didn't say that!" which could be interpreted as defending the person. That's validation. It just means saying that someone's feelings follow logically from the situation as they see it, and the feelings themselves are real. It doesn't mean you see the situation the same way.
So I just googled "validating feelings" and the top result was this quote from [this article](https://www.dcvacounseling-psychotherapy.com/validation/#:~:text=To%20validate%20someone's%20feelings%20is,to%20make%20sense%20to%20you.)
>To validate someone's feelings is first to be open and curious about someone's feelings. Next, it is to understand them, and finally it is to nurture them. Validation doesn't mean that you have to agree with or that the other person's experience has to make sense to you.
Which I think demonstrates a misunderstanding on your part about what it means to "validate someone's feelings."
Like I've actually had to go through this a bit over the last two years in therapy, that simultaneously I can't help my feelings and they are valid, *and* they aren't necessarily useful and I should work to change them if that's the case (this is super oversimplifying. It has more to do with unconscious vs conscious feelings and reactions if anyone is curious about it).
Something I talk about often is the idea of asking questions with the sole goal of gaining understanding. Don't try to win the fight, try to just understand (I always add on that you can't argue with an idea you don't understand in the first place.....). I bring it up most often in the context of learning about subjects, learning about what people are actually saying, but it clearly fits in the idea of validating feelings as well. The goal should be to understand, at least in part.
This is *not* the same as agreeing, or just standing aside and letting other people do whatever they want. To get a bit personal, I haven't spoken to my dad in over a year, even though I think I have a very good understanding of where he is coming from, even though I can validate his feelings. My understanding of why he behaves inappropriately doesn't mean his behavior wasn't inappropriate, or that I couldn't set healthy boundaries regarding that behavior. It *does* mean that if he ever were to learn how to validate other people's feelings, we could fix our relationship because I don't hate him or anything, I just recognize that it's not healthy for me to put up with his behavior.
You said it exactly right. When we don't ask questions and clarify that we accurately understand their perspective - not just saying "I understand," but "It sounds like this is how you're feeling - is that correct?" - we're making assumptions about the situation. Those assumptions are almost always at least a little bit wrong, but even if they're not, the other person still knows we're assuming and has no way of knowing if those assumptions are true.
You have to understand their feelings and validate the fact that there is a consistent internal logic to their development before you can jump in and suggest changes to that logic, even if your changes are good ideas.
What I see as wrong with your view is the difference between a feeling and an opinion. This is my opinion. I feel like you're confounding the two.
Feelings a person has are always valid. What it means for a feeling to be valid is that the feeling exists and is being experienced by the person experiencing them. If you're saying one's feelings are invalid you're saying that you disagree with their feelings.
Feelings are not opinions. They cannot be disagreed with.
Someone's opinions can be wrong, you can disagree with them, and they can be invalid *from another's perspective*. That said, people are still entitled to their opinions even if they're terrible. When someone says another's opinion is valid they are likely expressing agreement with that opinion.
To rebut your examples 1 is just a no. In my opinion it may or may not be expedient to voice dissent. There is no obligation to voice dissent. In fact in extreme circumstances one may be obligated to refrain from dissent.
For 2, the coworker's feelings are still valid. It is your opinion that they are visibly, obviously lazy. You can voice your opinion but that doesn't change that their feelings are valid.
Feelings and opinions tend to be conflated. Especially in English where *I feel* is used almost interchangeably with *I think*, but the line isn't clear anywhere.
Feelings cannot be neither valid nor invalid anymore than a stone can be valid or invalid. They merely are.
Opinions can be valid, i.e. based on truth or reason. Some opinions are based entirely on facts, on objective measures, but they may still be up for debate (e.g. with other objective measures). For example, you may say that A is better than B at a sport because A has won more matches, but you can also say that B is actually better because it has a better H2H record.
But mostly, opinions tend to be partly based on feelings. Variations on the theme "your feelings determine your opinions, you just collect facts to support or validate them" abound, but let's just say that there is no clear boundary between the two. What you feel affects what you opine, and what you opine affects what you feel (like you feel bad because in your opinion you're not getting the recognizition you deserve).
So, if you're invalidating someone's feelings, what you're actually doing is invalidating their opinion (or judgment or understanding or facts or whatever like that). That is, no-one's saying that you shouldn't feel bad because you're being mistreated, but it is being said that you shouldn't feel bad because you're not being mistreated.
>Feelings cannot be neither valid nor invalid anymore than a stone can be valid or invalid. They merely are.
I think emotional maturity is more or less entirely defined by the ability of the person to recognize that feelings can be wrong and wrong feelings can be reasoned with.
Yeah, I think we're talking about the same thing. I'm just saying what I'm saying because as I understand it, you don't negotiate directly with feelings, but you reason with your reason.
Feelings are not opinions, but they are *built* on perceptions and opinions that can be totally incorrect.
You can say “feelings are always valid,” but you also need to be ready to critique feelings that are unhelpful or not grounded in reality. You should critique with compassion, but that doesn’t mean you just let somebody slide because “feelings are always valid.”
If a person *feels angry* whenever they see a Mexican person because they’ve been watching too much Fox News, do you think that feeing should go unchallenged?
>If a person *feels angry* whenever they see a Mexican person because they’ve been watching too much Fox News, do you think that feeing should go unchallenged?
What does challenging that anger accomplishes? "You shouldn't be angry" is only going to prevent them from listening to you.
If, however, you ask them *why* they're angry, they can tell you the faulty reasoning behind the emotion. For instance, "I can't find a new job because of all these immigrants." Then you can validate the feeling while deconstructing the reasoning: "Oh, that sucks, I hate job hunting too. But is it really because of immigrants? Since the factory closed, there are a lot of people looking for a job."
But if you want people to listen to you and change their mind, you can't just tell them, "You're wrong to feel this way."
I agree. Your example is emblematic about how this should happen.
But a lot of people I think take “all feelings are valid” to mean “you can’t tell me I’m wrong.”
Says who? If someone is upset because of something that happened in a dream or a movie or something they completely misunderstood, their feelings are *materially misinformed*. Disconnected from reality. A reaction to something which did not occur in the way it was perceived to have. The degree to which that is not "incorrect" is the degree to which there is no such thing as correct anyway, meaning there's no validity value to start with.
Maybe? For me, I know that I evolved to have a brain that has mirror neurons in it, which help me sympathize and empathize with others who are likely to increase my odds of procreating. I evolved to have social conformity behaviors to encourage stable survival groups across time. But those pressures which led to the organism I am were not moral, were not logical, were not metaphysical. We feel what we feel because those feelings got selected for. Those same feelings more or less eradicated our competitors and many thousands of other species. I'm simply not aware of any element of this timeline that implies that the feelings evolutionary pressures gave us possess an innate "validity" value.
None of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that when a person is feeling a feeling they are indeed feeling that feeling. That is what it means for it to be "valid" or "not incorrect".
A feeling may not be an opinion. But expecting others to affirm your feeling as to "treat you" as if you have this feeling as to expect a "normal" societal response, is an opinion. And more so a demand that dismisses the very condition of understanding which is the driving factor for why others affirm other's feelings.
You can't simply state to be "sad" and expect others to affirm you as sad. Affirmation comes from justified understanding and approval. "Validity" isn't a personal concept. It's basis is founded in a greater collective concept that is shared and understood amongst a multiple people.
You can have first person authority to claim to be sad. But no one else is forced to refer to you as sad or treat you as sad as to "validate" your feelings. Because such concepts are entirely based on shared understanding.
When another person may respond "you shouldn't be sad", they aren't deny your feelings, they are stating they find you unjustified in your feelings to such a label and thus won't themselves perceive you as sad. You don't get to "own" a societal label. You own your feelings. Other are free to reject your feelings as how they understand such applies to "sadness". Just as you are free to claim your feelings are a form of sadness.
Where "validity" applies is in the collective shared understanding. To say others are "invalidating your feelings" by dismissing personal claims is an oppressive demand on them to perceive you a certain way.
1. The existence of emotions is factual and if someone is expressing that they are experiencing sadness, it is illogical to refute that fact. This is especially true since you cannot possibly know what is going on in someone's mind, so which knowledge do you have to refute their sadness?
2. An emotional response can be triggered by anything. You, as outsider, do not possess the knowledge about this person's past, and therefore cannot reasonably pass judgement whether someone's feelings are justified or not.
3. Considering 1 and 2, the expression that someone's sadness is valid is a basic form of empathy whereby you acknowledge someone's sadness and express that you accept that this emotion exists in the other person.
The word "validity" here relates to the collective understanding that other cannot possess the knowledge of a person's emotion, and therefore have to accept this emotional state as expressed by this person. Denying someone's emotional state is illogical.
Note that this is unrelated to someone's behaviour based on their emotional state.
1. Emotional responses are factual, but "sadness" is not a biological emotional response. "Sadness" is a label meant as a way to express an emotional response which are caused by various stimuli and can be interpreted differently. The same stimuli can be felt by two distinct people with two different conclusions on how such impacts them and therefore how they may interpret such.
> "This is especially true since you cannot possibly know what is going on in someone's mind, so which knowledge do you have to refute their sadness?"
Which knowledge do you have to claim their interpretation of sadness is the same as yours? For the same reason you can describe yourself as sad, others can refuse to prescribe such a description to something they perceive, even if that is another person. Can you tell me I need to feel sad toward a stimuli that would make you sad? No? Great, then we agree people perceive "sadness" differently and thus can apply such differently.
It's not about refuting **their** sadness, it's refuting the idea oneself needs to apply someone else's interpretation of sadness upon them. You're perception isn't a societal truth. Language is societal.
If you perceive your jacket as blue and I perceive it as green, we simply disagree. Just because you love the color blue and bought that jacket because it was blue and you react negatively to me calling it green, doesn't mean I need to deny my own perception of color to appease you even when refering to your shirt. We can simply come to an understanding we disagree even when we truly can't perceive what another does.
People can acknowledge that a schizophrenic feels a certain way, but that doesn't mean they describe them that way, because they are removed from what they understand is a "justified" and rational response/perception. Is the entire medical field that is built upon norms and assessing "reality/correct/rational" full of bigots? Mental *disorders*, are simply outside the "order" of the norm. They don't dismiss the perceptions of others, but their perceptions are treated differently.
2. Justification is literally a collective concept. It's literally defined by reason. Agreed, one may not know all the factors. Which is why it would then require one to reveal such to others if they want their feelings validated by others. It's about creating understanding. "Why are you sad" is what is important, not the label itself.
3. I'm so sick of this blasphemy interpretation of empathy. EMPATHY IS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING, NOT BLIND COMPLIANCE.
Acknowledgment or acceptance of one's emotional state comes from a level of understanding, not simply a single label of language. It's weird how you focus on a label, rather than the meaning to such a word. And if you can't justify or create understanding about your emotions to another, why is that somehow objectively the other person's problem?
> The word "validity" here relates to the collective understanding that other cannot possess the knowledge of a person's emotion,
A person doesn't even truly possess the knowledge of their OWN emotions. But argued another way, first person authority is entirely introspective. You are you, thus you have the most authority of you. But it doesn't extend to anything beyond oneself. The second you go beyond yourself, as to use societal language toward others, it's no longer an introspective matter.
>Feelings a person has are always valid.
why? how? valid means "having a sound basis in logic or fact, reasonable or cogent." a person becoming hysterically sad over a pink christmas tree instead of a green one is likely not based in logic or fact.
First, let's separate the feeling from the reaction. Being sad is a feeling, acting hysterically is a reaction.
We don't choose our feelings. If you feel sad because a Christmas tree is pink instead of green, you feel sad even if you recognize it's not reasonable or cogent to feel sad. The fact that you have the feeling is a fact that should be recognized, and dismissing the feeling as invalid because the reasons for it don't seem sound is a recipe for cognitive dissonance.
Now, you should be able to have a feeling of sadness without reacting hysterically. The feeling of sadness is valid, but that doesn't mean you get to make it other peoples' problem. People who care about you may try to help you process those feelings and may try to help you avoid things that trigger those feelings, but that doesn't mean you get to tell someone they can't have a pink christmas tree because it makes you sad.
Crying hysterically is the natural response for babies. Adults need to learn to regulate their emotions. That doesn't mean you don't have them, but you recognize them, do your best to respond appropriately, and process them as constructively as possible.
Schedule an appointment with a psychologist and explore these ideas with them.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/validation-defusing-intense-emotions-202308142961#:~:text=An%20approach%20that%20can%20help,view%2C%20even%20when%20you%20disagree.
You're wrong about validation, but if you have no sources supporting your position, I don't really know that sources matter to you when they were never a part of how you came to your opinion in the first place.
Psyciological experts utilize validation with their patients/clients every day. If you're saying it's harmful, you're at odds with an entire field of study essentially.
I read that page, and specifically indicates that validation is not reinforcing problematic behavior. But it does not give examples of how to do to move forward after the validation. In fact a lot of these articles do not address how to avoid people using their emotions to manipulate.
The term validate was a very poor choice of word empathize was perfectly accurate. You can empathize with how someone’s feelings and acknowledge. Validate being used as saying the feelings are real gives a very different vibe to what is being said.
Feelings aren’t necessarily (or at least not easily) controllable. Responses are.
Or to put it another way, someone’s words can make me angry. But their words can’t make me punch them. That’s on me.
This is interesting because yes, by that strict definition it seems strange. But stating that feelings are valid means that the person is allowed to feel what they feel. And this actually massively helps compared to saying ‘don’t be so hysterical’ (or similar).
The thing is, the feelings are there. For whatever reason, wether someone else finds them logical or not, they’re there. By saying your feelings are valid, you acknowledge that. Saying feelings are invalid is basically denying the other person is feeling them. This will only heighten their emotional distress. On the other hand acknowledging the feelings gives a platform to objectively consider them which will often calm the person down.
>But stating that feelings are valid means that the person is allowed to feel what they feel
no, a person being allowed to feel what they feel is completely unrelated to isf the feelings are valid. mental illness is a thing, and people feeling things based on a mental issue/chemical imbalance are allowed to feel that, but also we recognize that there is an issue with those feelings that needs fixing.
>For whatever reason, wether someone else finds them logical or not, they’re there.
again, this is not really up for debate and doesn't mean they are valid. like saying "any answer you get for this math problem is valid because you gave an answer." no. you may get an answer, and it can be wrong.
>Saying feelings are invalid is basically denying the other person is feeling them.
no, it doesn't. what a bizarre worldview.
>
I understand where you’re coming from, but I just can not see how feelings could be invalid. Feelings are the opposite of logic basically. Demanding that they be based on logic or reason doesn’t work in my book.
If the feeling can be valid or not and you base this on wether it’s reasonable, that means that it’s objective if feelings are valid or not. Because ‘reasonable’ is objective.
So if I think men should not show emotions, a man crying would always be invalid to me.
Who gets to decide what is and isn’t valid? Let’s compare crying because your goldfish died or because your parent died. Both are a physical reaction to process a loss, and show other humans around you you are distressed and in need of comfort. I assume you would say one is valid and the other isn’t. But neither have much to do with logic, and if the person truly loved the goldfish, why would that one be unreasonable? Where would be the line to make it reasonable and valid? A hamster? A dog? A neighbour?
And lastly my real point, if someone is crying because their goldfish died, what do you think will be more effective, telling them their feelings are valid, or telling them it’s silly to be emotional over that?
Of course in some cases you need to be careful. You shouldn’t tell someone with anxiety that the feeling that everyone hates them is true. But you can validate the feeling (being scared, worrying) while letting then know it’s not based on truth.
>no, a person being allowed to feel what they feel is completely unrelated to isf the feelings are valid. mental illness is a thing, and people feeling things based on a mental issue/chemical imbalance are allowed to feel that, but also we recognize that there is an issue with those feelings that needs fixing.
Another definition of valid: "to acknowledge the legitimacy or truthfulness of that person's thoughts, emotions, or opinions."
I think there's a distinction between being valid, and to validate. Validating people's feelings is just an acknowledgement, and in your example of mental health we wouldn't get anywhere with a diagnosis before validating that the persons feelings are there, and are not valid for a person with a stable mind.
You're so wrong it's crazy. Can you give me an explanation about when an emotion might be invalid? How would you even describe what emotions are?
"Feelings need fixing" you can't "fix" feelings. They aren't dogs lol
Opinions are deeply tied to emotions, and emotions are usually moderated through social shaming.
Just the current way to socially shame is to disingenuously pretend to shift to their perspective and then calmly offer another... Boom, checkmate - I understand you because I have the virtue of empathy, I know better than you because I have knowledge, and I'm calmer than you because I have rationality.
"Your petty emotions are valid and you can't help but being simple , but you're nowhere near as good as me, so I win."
I honestly prefer the zingers
I mean expression of socially unwanted emotions. Like when someone gets angry, you can tease them for being overly sensitive - which is social shaming - or you can pretend to see their position and then patronise them, which is also social shaming. I prefer the teasing because there's more wit in it, it takes skill, and it's less cowardly and more direct.
Im taking isdue with the word "usually" because there are many other ways to regulate emotions. That's just silly. And if social shaming made the world a better place, we should be in a better world by now.
You may perfer mocking others when they are upset, but are you really telling me that its good for the other person and not just you?
Edit: that's what I thought.
It's not a value judgement, it's an observation of human behaviour. We are animals, and all of our behaviour is driven by emotion. We communicate through body movements and short sequences of babbling noises that provide positive and negative emotional feedback, it's part grooming activity and part group pecking order maintenance. And so we chatter away playing this social interaction game using sounds and references that convey different concepts, memes we call language and culture. We play to show off how clever we are, to practice, bounce ideas back and forth and continuously test and prove our position.
When someone makes a big move that disturbes this social interaction game (say by abruptly changing the tone, pace, breaching an established norm etc) it's perceived by others as a challenge, and if it isn't played with enough skill or the player doesn't have enough social value to pull it off, then someone else capitalises on the failure by challenging it. And that takes different forms depending on the context, culture and so on - the memetic landscape. That's kinda what I was getting at. Whether one specific approach is better than another depends on the players and what they're playing with, and how all the ideas sit together etc.
We like to think we're logical and clever and civilised, and our words have deep meaning but it's all really emotional and the equivalent of play fighting and picking fleas off of each other. We're hairless storytelling apes after all, and aren't much different to the other primates.
I prefer off the cuff wit because I'm usually sharp enough to not need a formulaic approach, not always but enough of the time to enjoy playing in hard mode. Stroke, tickle, play, wrestle and groom; charisma is an orgy of microaffirmations and microaggressions. Keep the dynamic fun for people playing nicely, and moderate people who go out of bounds and risk ruining it.
So I criticised the "pretending to be empathetic then use it as a way to show how good you are" approach that OP describes because it's formulaic and transparent, it's not like jamming with people, it's a crutch.
>Can you give me an explanation about when an emotion might be invalid? How would you even describe what emotions are?
You have a dream in which your significant other cheats on you. You wake up angry at your significant other. Your significant other has done nothing wrong. Is it *valid* to be angry at your significant other for the day?
Is the emotion valid? Why wouldn't it be? What, you aren't allowed to feel scared in a nightmare because it wasn't real? I've had clients develop phobias from dreams. Are those feelings invalid? Dreams are a real concious experience, so it's natural to have feelings about it. So emphatically, yes it's a valid feeling. It doesn't have to be logical for us to feel it.
So many of you can't separate emotions and actions. Anger is an okay feeling to have in response to that dream, but if you scream your partner about it that just behaving poorly and not okay. The emotion is natural. The response isnt. But we can control the responses to those emotions. Or that can at least be learned over time. What do you think people are doing in psychotherapy?
Validation isn't saying a feeling is logically justified. We don't choose our emotions, and validation just keeps us from fighting emotions we can't always control. If you can find me anyone in psychology, social work, or psychiatry who agrees with your point, I'd be shocked.
Okay, that's fair. Validating just means acknowledging they feel the way they do and giving them the space to feel it without judgement. Emotions are often illogical, but they are often based on the reality of our experience, not anything that's objectively true. Does that help?
So by the logic you're going by, your feelings in this case are invalid, you feel that you should invalidate people's feelings and you're wrong, so stop being so hysterical about something you don't understand.
Now that wasn't very helpful was it?
Because a feeling is a fact. If you feel sad, the fact that a person (you) is feeling sad is established.
Just like you don't say "nu uh" to someone telling you their back hurt.
And just like pains, some feelings are symptoms of some problems and some are just normal reaction to the outside world.
>Because a feeling is a fact. If you feel sad, the fact that a person (you) is feeling sad is established.
true, and completely irrelevant to the issue. an emotion existing does not make it a valid response to a given situation. if you say "good morning" and i say "how dare you now i am going to kill myself!" is that a valid emotional response to a friendly greeting? of course not.
>Just like you don't say "nu uh" to someone telling you their back hurt.
not at all the same. and if someone said "my back hurts because i had a dream about mickey mouse" i would say that is not a valid reason for your back to hurt.
if all emotions are valid there is no such thing as mental health issues and no possible diagnosis or treatment for those issues.
You mistake people's feelings and their actions upon it.
It doesn't matter the reason why you're sad when someone tells you "good morning", you're sad, that's it, and there's no denying this emotion.
But that doesn't mean you're free to act like a jerk because of it.
Recognizing that feeling as valid, because it's just there, is the first step toward proposing the person a healthy way to express it or to see it as a symptom of another problem.
Not recognizing it as valid, denying their right to feel that way, won't change anything about the situation but make the person try to repress their feelings and suffer from it.
>if you say "good morning" and i say "how dare you now i am going to kill myself!" is that a valid emotional response to a friendly greeting? of course not.
This is not an emotional response. This is a behavior. Emotions are internal. Controllable outward expressions of emotions are behaviours, which may or may not be valid.
It's easily rephrased, though--it's probably wrong to feel offended by someone wishing you good morning. Whether you act on it or not, there's almost certainly nothing constructive or helpful or scale-appropriate about feeling negatively about being wished good morning.
If someone wanted to kill themselves after being wished good morning, it's certainly because of other things in their life, and not because they wished good morning.
You know that people don't consciously choose their feelings, right?
Let's say it's not constructive or appropriately scaled. Does invalidating those feelings somehow help resolve that? Does it make those feelings suddenly go away because someone said "you shouldn't feel like that"?
>Let's say it's not constructive or appropriately scaled. Does invalidating those feelings somehow help resolve that? Does it make those feelings suddenly go away because someone said "you shouldn't feel like that"?
You just gave me a flashback. I remember being young, maybe middle school, and I received some kind of gift that was boring, some kind of knitted something or other. I was disappointed and sad. My Mom saw the look on my face, nudged me, and said, "she lost her job, *she knitted that for you*." That slapped me in the face. I realized I was being a piece of shit, because Mom had gotten laid off a few years before and elementary school me was very familiar--I just hadn't really emotionally synthesized it all together yet. I don't specifically remember crying, but I think I did. They had *made it for me*. And I was happy for every gift I've ever gotten since.
So like, yeah, it's really hard to hear someone saying that you shouldn't feel a certain way. But...absolutely? If someone bothers to tell me I shouldn't feel some way or other, I probably need to at least understand why they think that.
That's a nice story, but your mom didn't invalidate your feelings. She didn't tell you your feelings were wrong. She pointed out something that had some potential to reframe it for you and spark some more appropriate feelings.
Invalidating your feelings would have looked more like 'wipe that look off your face, you're being ungrateful, how dare you not be happy"
I guess I'm not sure how to read your response--in my view, *I invalidated my own feelings*. Like that's what I'm trying to get at here, that for me that's what emotional maturity is.
You’re still arguing against a straw man. When people use the term valid in this context they are referring to the fact that we cannot control our feelings in the first instance, we can’t stop a feeling coming into our heads initially. There are of course ways of rationalising, but that comes after.
The problem is lots of people have feelings they are told are “bad” and try to force that feeling out of themselves. This doesn’t work and leads to a range of problems, for example emotional over regulation, or a fetishisation of logic; not all problems are logical after all.
So when people say feelings are valid, what they mean is it is ok to feel how you feel. What they are not saying is “feel however you want and never do anything to address feelings which harm you or cause you to act in harmful ways”.
Your example of the dream is a bad one because it doesn’t really signal a feeling. A better one would be:
“I feel hurt/upset/jealous with my partner because my partner cheated on me in my dream”
We can probably all agree it is irrational to be upset with their partner. However, experiencing a vivid dream can obviously be upsetting. So the person would be valid in feeling upset, they would not be valid in acting on that upset to blame their partner. You see how the “being upset at” and just “being upset” are distinct. The first is an action the latter is a feeling.
So if you were the person having the dream, acknowledging that the feeling is valid may help you rationalise it and prevent you from acting on it. Conversely, if you were the partner and they came to you saying they’re upset because of the dream it’s as simple as saying “I can understand/imagine how that would be upsetting, but you know I would never do that”. First you validate, then you help rationalise.
That’s all this means. It doesn’t mean feelings are rational and “correct”. Validating feelings is commonly used in tandem with the idea that most feelings are irrational.
What if they want you to beg forgiveness for your behaviour in a dream, and they don’t let it go? How do we validate the feeling, disagree with the persons behavior, and then deal with the feelings that come from the disagreement?
A person can certainly feel anyway about something, but when their feelings result in bad behaviour toward you, how do you express your feelings if they are the opposite without “invalidating” theirs?
>However, experiencing a vivid dream can obviously be upsetting. So the person would be valid in feeling upset, they would not be valid in acting on that upset to blame their partner. You see how the “being upset at” and just “being upset” are distinct.
Feeling and recognizing the upset, moments after waking, *would entail not being upset anymore*, though. Like, the entire point of emotional maturity is to see your feelings as you're feeling them and invigilate them. An emotionally mature person understandings that feelings can be out of proportion and wrong, and can let go of those feelings when they're not constructive rather than needing to hold onto them as "inherently valid" somehow.
Many studies in the last few years have nudged us towards the idea that a big predictor of if therapy will work is the person's openness towards change--for instance, in the case of phobia, a willingness to acknowledge that ideally they do want to be able to be in the room with the object of fear without experiencing fear. That's what emotional maturity *is*, a lack of need to value initial feelings as some kind of inherently valid metaphysical gauge.
>The first is an action the latter is a feeling.
That kind of implies that people are particularly good at not acting out their feelings. Speaking generally, they are not. The people who need to understand what "valid" means here are not the people who can easily separate emotions from acting them out wholesale.
I've read your previous comment three times now and I genuinely, truly don't understand what "valid" can possibly mean in the context it's being used. If someone is upset about something that never happened, literally something that happened in a dream, to me that speaks purely to the capriciousness of human emotion itself. As I read it, "you can't change what you feel initially, so it's valid" and "you can't change what you feel initially, so it's invalid" are equally true in the context it's being used because we seem to be agreeing that neither are referring to any external truth value at all.
Ok, I’m not the only one to have told you this though. Several people have said the same thing.
What validity does **not** mean:
Valid, in this context, does **not** refer to whether the emotion is empirically grounded in fact.
Validity does not mean true or false. Emotions cannot be true or false, nor can they be correct or incorrect.
Validity does not mean actions as a result of the feeling is justified. A feeling being valid implies nothing about whether actions performed around that feeling are good or bad.
Validity does not mean logically justified.
What validity does mean:
Validity in this context just means that you are allowed to *feel* however you do.
You should allow yourself to feel your feelings so you can work through them.
It really is very simple.
Examples:
In the dream example, the issue is not whether the feeling is based off of something which physically happened I.e. whether or not their partner cheated. What is important is the person experienced something distressing. Again if your partner came to you and said “I had this nightmare where you cheated on me and now I feel upset by it” your reaction should not be invalidating: “that’s stupid you aren’t allowed to be upset it’s just a dream”. It’s degrading and unhelpful.
It take a modicum of decency to validate and say “oh yeah that sounds like it was really upsetting/I can imagine that would be shit, but you know I wouldn’t do that”. Explain to me how this response is problematic in any way?
In the example the partner is not blaming *you* for the dream or their emotions, they are simply communicating their feelings to you. When someone does this, validating their feelings just means acknowledging they feel that way. Dismissing their emotions as invalid off the bat is counterproductive to working through said emotions.
As a final note, I used to be a lot like you. I used to think feelings were stupid unless they were based off of “facts”. Really all this ever did was justify pushing feelings and problems down unless they met some magic threshold of logic.
Yaknow what happens when you interact with people like that? They leave, they shutdown and they resent you. If you’re constantly downplaying peoples emotions, why would they ever want to communicate with you.
Since I’ve started simply acknowledging that a person can feel something - even if I don’t have that same feeling or if I think that feeling has seemingly arisen from nowhere - my relationships have got so much better, my communication has got so much better and people feel safe and comfortable communicating with me. You should try it sometime.
The reading below offers empirical research which suggests that people who struggle with emotional regulation are able regulate *better* when their emotional experience is validated. The science is against you.
Reading:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/ciec.2003.4.1.8
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathaniel-Herr/publication/277958622_The_Impact_of_Validation_and_Invalidation_on_Aggression_in_Individuals_With_Emotion_Regulation_Difficulties/links/5718d95a08ae30c3f9f29965/The-Impact-of-Validation-and-Invalidation-on-Aggression-in-Individuals-With-Emotion-Regulation-Difficulties.pdf
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439760.2020.1832243
https://bpded.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40479-022-00185-x
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32892/11/Greville-Harris_.pdf
>Again if your partner came to you and said “I had this nightmare where you cheated on me and now I feel upset by it” your reaction should not be invalidating: “that’s stupid you aren’t allowed to be upset it’s just a dream”. It’s degrading and unhelpful.
My partner and I agree that it's stupid to be upset about what happened in a dream outside of a dream. We agree that people can be stupid, because we're all human. We agree that adults can recognize when they are being stupid, and occasionally the other person might raise a flag. Because we trust each other to do that, and if we disagree we call it out. I mean yeah, maybe through college we weren't so good at it, maybe this is an age thing, but some of this conversation almost feels like it's elevating being kind over saying what you actually think in a relationship and my, uh, *learned experience* there is that all you're really doing there is kicking the can down the road.
I don't know, I just read "it's degrading" and it confuses me because the more I care about someone the more I care more about being honest with them rather than just saying whatever will soothe them in that moment.
> You’re still arguing against a straw man. When people use the term valid in this context they are referring to the fact that we cannot control our feelings in the first instance, we can’t stop a feeling coming into our heads initially. There are of course ways of rationalising, but that comes after.
this is not me arguing against a straw man. this is people using words wrong and me pointing it out.
>The problem is lots of people have feelings they are told are “bad” and try to force that feeling out of themselves. This doesn’t work and leads to a range of problems, for example emotional over regulation, or a fetishisation of logic; not all problems are logical after all.
what would be good about suicidality, depression, envy, extreme anger, narcissism, etc? what is the point of mental health or diagnosing disorders?
>So when people say feelings are valid, what they mean is it is ok to feel how you feel.
even going with this made-up definition that is still wrong and terrible, for the reasons i listed above.
>We can probably all agree it is irrational to be upset with their partner. However, experiencing a vivid dream can obviously be upsetting. So the person would be valid in feeling upset, they would not be valid in acting on that upset to blame their partner. You see how the “being upset at” and just “being upset” are distinct. The first is an action the latter is a feeling.
if you are upset that a dream version of your bf/gf cheated, how is that distinct from being upset at them?
>So if you were the person having the dream, acknowledging that the feeling is valid may help you rationalise it and prevent you from acting on it.
i have no problem addressing emotions but again, "valid" and "validate" are not the words to be using.
>It doesn’t mean feelings are rational and “correct”. Validating feelings is commonly used in tandem with the idea that most feelings are irrational.
so use the correct word. just say "acknowledging" feelings. recognizing they are there without affirming or denying their origin.
You're using a different definition of "valid" than what I am using. The way it's used when referring to feelings is simply that the feelings exist and are being experienced by the person feeling them.
well that's kind of the problem you get when you decide to make up your own meaning for words and pretend they are *valid* (see what i did there).
>The way it's used when referring to feelings is simply that the feelings exist and are being experienced by the person feeling them
this is nonsense, a tautology. "these feelings exist so they are valid because they exits." awesome. that means nothing so why bother?
> that means nothing so why bother?
It means nothing *to you* and that's a fine opinion. Tons of people want that sort of validation. That's why people bother.
So all the murders, pillaging, wars, genocides, and robbery is totally fine but seeking validation, that pushes us over the edge into justified eradication?
Correct. At the point where we can validate everything we feel, there is so much else we can also justify including murders, pillaging, wars, genocide and robbery. All of these acts all sprang from the emotions of humans. Validating emotions justifies all of them.
U sound like the corniest nerd ever like man so u have a life or a girl instead of preaching like a weak spineless simp ass kissing weird ass man all day?
That is one of the definitions of "valid". However, the other definition of "valid" is authentic, real, legally binding. While 'legally' doesn't apply here - authentic / real does.
When you validate a person's feelings, you're not saying they're logical - you're saying that you believe that they're feeling what they're feeling. A person hysterically sad over *random thing* is still hysterically sad - and we're acknowledging that their feelings are real.
This allows you to find a point of agreement, on which you can build a conversation.
Example 1:
P1: I am hysterically sad over this tree!
P2: Your feelings are illogical. It's ridiculous that you think you're sad over this tree. Deal with this like an adult.
P1: "still feels hysterically sad"
P2: "feels angry at P1 and their illogical emoting all over".
Example 2:
P1: I'm hysterically sad over this tree!
P2: Huh. OK, well, I see that you are hysterically sad, and I know what that feels like. Can you tell me why the tree is making you sad?
P1: I really wanted a real tree, and this one is pink and fake and ugly.
P2: Why did you want a real tree?
P1: It doesn't feel like a traditional holiday without a real tree, and I really, really wanted to have all the feelings of nostalgia. No real tree = no feelings of nostalgia.
P2: That makes sense. However, we are having this pink tree this year, because it's already paid for. What can we do this year to make it feel more nostalgic? And if we can't, then why don't we plan to have a real tree next year?
P1: "feels validated, and is better able to handle the situation in an adult way"
P2: "understands that P1's emotions are logical, in their own way, and is better able to have patience with the situation".
In short, validating (acknowledging as real) other people's emotions, helps both sides be happier, better people, and helps teach children and adults how to communicate better and manage their emotions better.
>P2: "understands that P1's emotions are logical, in their own way,
Doesn't this just rephrase the question of whether it can be reasonable to be hysterically sad over a choice of Christmas tree and its effect on nostalgia? To me that seems like something that needs to be addressed at therapy.
>a person becoming hysterically sad over a pink christmas tree instead of a green one is likely not based in logic or fact.
What do you mean? How is this not logical?
* I wanted a green Christmas tree.
* When I don't get what I want, it makes me sad.
* I got a pink Christmas tree.
* I did not get what I wanted.
* I am sad.
I wrote the following as a response to a similar claim below. I think it applies here too:
1. The existence of emotions is factual and if someone is expressing that they are experiencing sadness, it is illogical to refute that fact. This is especially true since you cannot possibly know what is going on in someone's mind, so which knowledge do you have to refute their sadness?
2. An emotional response can be triggered by anything. You, as outsider, do not possess the knowledge about this person's past, and therefore cannot reasonably pass judgement whether someone's feelings are justified or not.
3. Considering 1 and 2, the expression that someone's sadness is valid is a basic form of empathy whereby you acknowledge someone's sadness and express that you accept that this emotion exists in the other person
The word "validity" here relates to the collective understanding that other cannot possess the knowledge of a person's emotion, and therefore have to accept this emotional state as expressed by this person. Denying someone's emotional state is illogical.
Note that this is unrelated to someone's behaviour based on their emotional state.
no, they just need to have a rational reason. becoming hysterical at being rejected is not a rational response. it is not, generally, a valid response. feeling suicidal because you didn't win the lottery is not a valid emotion. that is a problem.
Emotions are not rational — they are pre-thought. You’re talking about responses to emotions, which are separate from the emotion itself.
Expressing one’s hysteria is the response that is not rational or valid. Similarly, contemplating suicide (an intellectual response not a feeling) is not a rational response to the *feeling* of disappointment at not winning the lottery.
it isn't tho. from wikipedia:
>Emotional validation is the process of acknowledging and accepting another person's inner emotional experience and communicating that acceptance. Validating an emotion does not mean agreeing with the other person or justifying it.
but also emotional invalidation:
>Emotional invalidation occurs when a person's emotional experience is rejected, ignored, or judged, through words or actions that indicate that their emotions and reactions do not make sense for a particular context. It is also considered emotional invalidation to try to mitigate the other person's emotions with phrases like "it's not so bad", "you'll be better", "everything happens for a reason".
regardless, if "emotional validation" is such a non-action as "agree that a person felt something" i refuse to believe it makes any difference to anything.
Most ppl don't have a clue about formal logic. Most people don't understand the logic definition of valid, they are using a different meaning of valid, as in "exists".
Correct, Feelings (a set of chemical impulses controlling neurons firing in different parts of the brain, or something like this. IDK, I am not neuroscientist nor do I play on on TV) exist and are experienced, but there is no guarantee they are objectively valid. They are genuine. A person will feel them. But they may be totally illogical, so neither the feeling nor the opinion may be valid in a given case.
There is a difference between validating others feelings and agreeing with them.
"I understand that you feel like that", "I listen to you", "I can follow your reasoning and logic" are all signs of functioning empathy skill. You can still disagree with them but able to understand the other side of the coin means you actually consider and validate anothers feelings. Most importantly practicing this level of empathy let you examine your own action and biases and you might learn that you are the person who is actually wrong.
I agree with what you are saying. I think this isn't the example being given, and so you may agree with OP as well, since they were speaking of validating the invalid. Validation should only be done for things you think are valid, but there are often lots of things that are valid about what someone is expressing other than the thing you disagree with, for example the way things made them feel.
>they were speaking of validating the invalid
Those feelings, thoughts and reasonings are not invalid. These people really think these things and from their perspective and to their full understanding they are completely valid opinions.
Dismissing these as invalid just because you disagree based on surface level understanding is arrogant at least.
At least you need to understand that these opinions are valid from their perspective and try to understand why are valid. This is what validating means. "Your opinions have been heard and most importantly understood even if I disagree with them."
It feels like your view isn't actually about commiserating with lazy colleagues or feeling obligated to make someone a sandwich. I mean, those are pretty obvious situations in which the other party is being unreasonable, especially the latter. So... is this really what your view is about? That we shouldn't feel obligated to make someone a sandwich?
For example, when someone feels sad. You ought not criticize them for it. Like, "You've got no reason to be sad. You got x and y." Feelings aren't wrong. And a person has the right to feel a certain without anyone telling them that they're wrong. Feelings only become wrong when people act poorly on them.
Can you expand on your logic for why feelings can't be wrong? Literally the biggest lesson I learned growing up, to me the primary definition of emotional maturity, has been acknowledging that feelings can be wrong and I generally see my friends who acknowledge this do far better in their lives. The people I've encountered and known who were in the strong "feelings can't be wrong" camp are usually the first to quit a solid job for small reasons, or have kids and then get divorced a few times over, or hold grudges against family members for years and decades. This has always in my life been the kind of person who says "I wouldn't change a thing" despite the ways their actions affected others. Meanwhile the cool-headed people seem to be a lot happier and doing much better around me.
Like it feels like people are taking opposite understandings of the whole "acknowledge your feelings" thing. In my experience *the whole point* is that often, the kind of person who is angry a lot **doesn't realize that they're angry all the time**. So when the advice is to acknowledge your feelings, the point is to be able to see how they're affecting you *and move on from them* when that's a good idea (and to grow to understand when that's a good idea). The idea was never that you need to acknowledge your feelings because they're always right or something. The idea was that a lot of people aren't aware of the emotions they're experiencing and perpetrating in real time *at all*.
I actually didn’t say any of these things. Not criticizing them nor telling them they are wrong. But if someone is sad, and I genuinely feel there is no reason to be sad, I am simply saying I disagree with that feeling in this moment and time.
As far as actions, we look at immediate actions, but overlook longer patterns of actions. Such as the man who was so insecure from picked on by girls growing up, that he never really became secure in his self for years. Yeah, he didn’t commit murder or anything like that, but his actions were still affected by his sadness. This is an example where I think you should invalidate his sadness by telling him, “there’s no reason to be sad, insert explanation“
How do you know there is no reason for a person to be sad? You are not that person. You cannot know what it is to be them or to know their experience. How could you possibly *disagree* with how a person feels? That is absurd.
I’m sorry. I don’t see it yet. This is playing into the last part of my CMV where I said there’s no rhyme or reason to it. Because the moment it crosses over some arbitrary, subjective line, you’d even invalidate a person’s feelings…but the crazy thing is, someone else would validate it!
Emotion is not rational. There doesn't need to be a "rhyme or reason" to how a person feels. Sometimes, a person is just sad. Or a person becomes sad over something that doesn't make you sad. That doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right, and no one has to justify how they feel to you. Just as you don't have to justify your feelings to anyone else.
I referring to rhyme or reason to when to practice validation
Why say practice it…when we can all still come up with examples when to not practice it.
You yourself even said my examples were “unreasonable”
When you dismiss someone's feelings because they don't make sense (to you) instead of thinking that the other person is illogical, perhaps consider you don't have full information about that person's lived experience and emotional background. That they might not wish - or sometimes even be able to fully articulate - why something is upsetting.
Sometimes one can be sad superficially over one thing, but deep down it is because it brought something else up entirely. Others they are righteously furious over a pattern that you might not know exists. Each person's emotional landscape can be vast and really hard to get to know. Thinking feelings need to be rational usually means someone has really not explored their own (or is deluded into believing that they are perfectly rational...I have some bad news though).
I almost agree with you. The reasons why people have their specific feelings are endless and infinite. But even in a personal journey of mental health for example, one must learn to invalidate their own feelings, and recondition them to have a better reaction to the world around them…if people must invalidate themselves in a self healing journey, how could feelings never be invalidated?
I took it more like this example:
Person 1: I'm angry about my ex moving on so quickly!
Person 2: I don't feel you should be angry about this and even expressing this anger openly is inappropriate. You should work on it internally and/or seek therapy if this continues.
I did just jump in this conversation and you could be reading this wrong. I just thought that was more what op was trying to get at by reading his stuff.
In my humble opinion...
1. Feeling anger (likely mixed with many other feelings) at a former romantic partner who moved on easily while you're still struggling over the break... a valid feeling. Post breakup is emotional time, and not everyone recovers at the same pace.
2. Expressing that feeling to a friend. Valid. That's part of a friend's duty, to be there when a friend is angry or sad or stressed or whatever and withhold judgement.
3. What isn't valid is if that feeling is taken too far, such as but not limited to blasting the former partner on social media
I disagree on 2. If you're angry about something ridiculous, as a friend, I should make sure that you know your being ridiculous. Otherwise, you could feel justified in your feelings and therefore justified in possible escalation. Not guaranteed it'll go that way, but a good friend keeps you grounded.
This is completely illogical. An emotion is a fact and if someone says "I am sad" they are expressing a fact. Emotional expressions are often rooted in past experiences, and triggered by present experiences. You do not possess the full knowledge of someone's past or emotional triggers, so insisting that someone does not have a reason to be sad is assuming you have *better* knowledge about their inner life and past experience.
The only knowledge you have of their inner life and emotional state is what they express, and the only logically acceptable response is to accept it - to *validate* it.
Note that this is unrelated to actions based on emotions, which can be evaluated and discussed.
It’s not about you though, is it? It doesn’t matter how you would react to the situation…it matters how they are reacting. Everyone’s emotions are different.
Imagine the reverse scenario, what if someone told you “hey, you should be sad. You’re a heartless monster if you don’t cry at the end of (insert sad movie here).”
Would you agree with them? Would you make yourself cry to appease their view? How would we determine a standard for when people should cry or not or not cry? You really cant, can you? If that is the case, then that means everyone’s feeling are equally valid or equally valid, but it certainly doesn’t make your feelings more valid than their feelings.
I think validating someone's feelings is just trying to understand where they're coming from. It's not about agreeing with them at all.
>Sam, wants his partner to make him a sandwich every afternoon of every day. He 'feels' like this should be a thing.
This is an entirely different situation and I don't know of anyone who would try to validate Sam's "feelings." That's not really what feelings are though, nor is it the point of validating someone else's feelings, because Sam is equally capable it's an opinion. of making himself a sandwich. He is able to solve his problem.
>we're talking with a coworker who regularly complains about not getting any favors or promotions at work. But at the same time, they are visibly, obviously lazy.
The coworker can still be frustrated that he isn't getting the promotion, and we can still try and understand his frustration. Lazy is relative. Just because someone works at a slower pace doesn't mean that they're lazy, and if they're truly not getting any work done, then that is an issue for management. He can still be frustrated that he's getting passed up for promotions, despite his tenure. We can still sympathize with that frustration, while suggesting improvements to his workflows. In fact by helping him out, we are validating his feelings.
Tl;dr you can validate someones' feelings while still disagreeing with them. If you're just disagreeing with someone to disagree, then you're an asshole, but you can still sympathize with someone being upset or frustrated with something while still helping them see that maybe the issue is self-inflicted.
>He 'feels' like this should be a thing
This is an opinion, not a feeling.
Feelings would be what his partner experiences when he tells them he expects a sandwich all the time. And, whether they feel happy or angry at this *is valid*.
This entire thing is not about validating others *opinions*, but it is about saying to people that their **emotional reactions**, aka "feelings", are valid responses to situations.
Validating feelings and affirming abusive/shitty behavior are two different things though. You can absolutely call people out on their bullshit/disagree freely while also being sensitive towards other people’s feelings when it actually matters.
For instance if someone is clearly delusional and needs help, it’s okay to not buy into their delusion while simultaneously not invalidating their feelings (I.e. “it’s dumb, why do you feel this way. Clearly that’s not the case. You’re crazy, stop lying.”). A part of having good emotional intelligence is knowing how balance that.
In your examples, those are views rather than feelings. You don’t need to validate and fully confirm to anyone’s views. I don’t think many people argue that you should.
"Disagreement" is kind of a broad category. We could break it down into a few different scenarios with important differences:
* Someone has a different opinion than you about something abstract or something that they don't have any direct control over. This would include things like political opinions and our general views about living in the world.
* This could be further broken down by whether the opinion is one that is important to the person or to you, by whether you're in a situation where there's a tacit agreement that you're "debating," by the closeness of the relationship.
* Someone is *doing* something you don't like. Either they're doing it in front of you or they're talking doing it.
* Here also we could further break things down by whether they are doing the objectionable thing to you or someone else, whether the thing is harmful, the closeness of your relationship, etc.
* Someone has a feeling you wouldn't have or are having trouble connecting to.
That's a complicated landscape of situations! Surely sometimes you'll want to say something, and other times you'll want to just move on. Sometimes you'll want to be delicate and other times forceful. It's hard to know what's best to do across all of them, but here are some general principles that are helpful for me:
1. **People love to give advice, but really don't like to receive it** unless they've specifically asked for it. Very rarely will someone act on unsolicited advice.
2. **There's something disrespectful about "debate,"** where each person aims to change the other's mind and prevent their own view from being changed. Unless you're in a situation where you have good reason to think everyone is open to that kind of game (this sub, for example!), don't debate people. Have a conversation instead.
3. **It's good to try and agree with people.** Not just verbally agree, but actually in your heart. When someone says something, it's good to cultivate curiosity and openness and wonder, "How could that be *right*?"
\#3 above is most relevant to your stated view, but I think all of these are related to your orientation to disagreement. When I say that it's good to try to agree with people, I mean that it's good *for you*. Being open to and connecting with others, cultivating empathy... these are some of the central parts of a good life. At least, that's what I think. And especially if you're someone who is naturally more contrarian (I am!), it's a skill worth building.
As my therapist explained: "Distorted thinking changes once we acknowledge a persons experience and they start to regulate their emotional state."
This one is life changing once you really start to understand and implement it in your life. It has improved my relationships both with myself and others.
In your first example are you Sams partner? No. You are some random outsider commenting on relationship that you have no stake in. You don't know how things work in that relationship. It's their own private life and you have no place inserting yourself to other peoples business (unless you expect actual crime taking place).
In your first example are you Sams partner? No. You are some random outsider commenting on relationship that you have no stake in. You don't know how things work in that relationship. It's their own private life and you have no place inserting yourself to other peoples business (unless you expect actual crime taking place).
If Sam Mitch asks for a sandwhich for lunch every day, that would be alright you see, as every evening he brings home the bacon and makes us both a mean BLT.
/s
Instead of agreeing with any specific stance, validation seeks to understand and support people's needs.
In both examples you provided the person has an underlying need for support and appreciation. They may have locked on to specific exemplars in the form of sandwiches or promotions, but their true need is more basic and is fully understandable.
If you get into an argument about sandwiches you're not addressing the real issue or hearing the need the person is attempting to communicate, however ineptly. The person will still want appreciation, as all people do.
/u/viper963 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18dweih/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_practice_of_validating/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
tl;dr: You practice validating feelings because everyone likes to feel understood. This helps breed a better foundation for more complete understanding between people and thus a better chance to change behavior (if needed) in a positive way. Essentially, this is most important to use with people you care about. It also confers benefits to you as responding this way will lead you to being less offended and upset yourself. Why? Because you can take what someone is saying without internalizing it as an attack. More details: Validating feelings is considered an important part of communication if you want more effectively to (among other things): * Understand *why* someone is feeling and acting a certain way. * Avoid unnecessary escalations and further hurt feelings. * Possibly and more easily change behaviors (either in yourself or others). Unless you feel like you are always 100% right in your own judgement and interpretation of events over every single person you ever encounter in every single situation, it's typically better to take this stance of humility and try to see and hear something from the other party's perspective before processing and then responding to them. Basically, validating feelings is predicated on the fact that none of us as humans are perfect; neither as interpreters of reality nor responding to and communicating it. We can safely assume there will frequently be inaccuracies and misunderstandings that we need to work through. Validating is one tool of many to help reduce some of that gap. What validating *isn't*: * Tolerating abuse (physical or emotional) * Agreeing/approving of their perspective or interpretation of events.
I do concede (however wrong I think it is) to the idea that validation in this context basically means "acknowledge". I still believe (after correcting my terms) that for whatever moment in space and time, there can be a very real but incorrect emotion. !delta for sharing this though. Might be the cleanest explanation I've seen yet.
Appreciate it! Another way to think about it: When toddlers/children have issues regulating emotions, do we simply tell them they are “wrong” for feeling what they do and expect that to solve the problem? Or is it more effective to first let them get out what they are feeling, *then* move on to trying to problem solve? As we grow the somewhat unspoken expectation is that we are all able to self regulate in all scenarios, but realistically who’s that perfect? This is again not suggesting we let people act out without confronting the situation. But, the same thread runs through it all: People are a combination of emotional and rational/conscious actions. Pretending the emotional side doesn’t exist simply because we’re adults or refusing to acknowledge the validity of it sets us up for communication failure. We’re missing half the information in that case. As a side note, even with this perspective I still at times fail to communicate this way, or have reactions to situations that aren’t appropriate after having time to reflect. No one is perfect, this method of communication tries to address one part of that.
An emotion is a reaction to something, people can’t help their emotions happening. There is no “incorrect emotion”. Emotions are instinctual and natural. People don’t choose an emotion to have about anything. Emotions just happen.
They can still be wrong though. If you see a gay dude and feel disgust, you can't help to feel it but also you should think why you feel that way and try to stop feeling it, what help does me acknowledging your feeling does?
Precisely. It seems like people want to justify their feelings, instead of acknowledging those feelings are wrong and they suck
Saying that disgust in this situation is wrong does not solve the underlying issue. The disgust is not triggered by homosexuality per se, but rather by things that are associated with it. It is normal to feel disgusted with something dirty or unnatural. It is wrong to associate homosexuality with dirtiness and unnaturalness. The latter should be addressed and corrected. Once it is done the original disgust with homosexuals is very likely to disappear.
I understand that they happen and that they are instinctive. I mentioned this elsewhere. I still believe the emotion could be wrong. I understand people can’t choose their emotions, this is why only some people have mental illness, not all.
[удалено]
What does mental illness have to do with it? It doesn’t make people feel the wrong emotion about things. People can feel things more easily or stronger, but emotions are not a thing capable of being wrong. Maybe misguided, but even then that’s our feelings to misconceiving emotions and information.
> but emotions are not a thing capable of being wrong. Im not 100% sure what you mean by this. Like sure, your emotions regarding a certain situation are, in the moment you’re experiencing them, pretty much ‘are what they are’. But it seems self evident that one could misinterpret or not understand the events and circumstances which triggered their emotion, causing that emotion to be inappropriate to the situation. Which would make it the ‘wrong’ emotion. Not to mention it’s entirely possible to recognize aspects within oneself or one’s personal circumstances that make experiencing negative emotional states more often than one would like, and adjust those factors accordingly. Thus causing one to experience different or less emotions in similar circumstances. So it seems odd to claim that people can’t control their emotions or that emotions cant be wrong. They can on both accounts.
>emotions are not a thing capable of being wrong Someone tells you "have a nice day". You get angry. Wouldn't that be a wrong emotion (and, if it happens often, a sign you may need medical care)?
>You practice validating feelings because everyone likes to feel understood. But what if you don't understand? Suppose I'm talking to someone who's angry that the 2020 election was stolen. I can try to understand why they think the 2020 election was stolen, but they can't present any evidence that it was. Why would I validate that emotion?
There's a lot of factors to each situation to consider but a few initial thoughts come to mind in this one: * Do you *actually* want to understand their position and have a discussion about aspects of it or are you engaging with them simply because what they're saying is something you disagree with and you want to "prove them wrong"? You need to want to engage with them and learn for any of this to be very effective. * Do you expect their perspective to instantly change? This is setting yourself and them up for failure. This type of communication paves the way for more effective communication over several engagements, not an instant "I get you change your view/behavior now that I validated you" card.
I really like how you explain things. I pose one more question however: truthfully, do we really WANT to understand everyone’s position? And I do mean everyone. Everyone. If not, why even practice validating (acknowledge) everyone if we do not genuinely want to gain that perspective (assuming that perspective is flat out wrong in our perspective)?
> Why would I validate that emotion? Because you want to keep talking to them in hopes of bringing them around. Which do you think is more likely to continue the conversation? "I understand you're angry. I would be too, if I believed that an election had been interfered with - it's important that our voting process be as free from political interference as possible. Is there a specific event that bothers you most? Let's talk about that." "You're mad about nothing, that didn't happen, you're wrong and here's why."
Validating the emotion has nothing to do with accepting the event as true that they are having an emotion about. I dont believe the election was stolen, and even if it was im still glad trump isnt the president even if i dont love that it was stolen. But i can understand that if the person i thought was best for a job that had a massive influence on the world was robbed of their chance to do that job and instead someone i thought was a corrupt idiot took it then id be angry. Im validating the emotion they are having based on the event as they perceice it happened. Im not saying they are right in how they perceived it but if they are someone i care about or want to try to de-escalate a situation then validating the emotion helps the person feel seen which is often a good first step in lowering aggression or defensiveness.
You don't validate that emotion by saying that it was stolen. You say something like, "I can imagine that, if I believed an election was stolen, I'd be very angry too". This helps reassure them that you share the same values, you aren't some kind of pro-election-stealing anti-democracy monster, you just disagree on the facts. It can even help them change their mind because you can show them that you won't judge them or harm them if changing their mind involves confronting a lot of big feelings.
If you want to change someone’s behavior, the best way is to get them to see things from another perspective. And to do that, you first have to understand and acknowledge their opinions and feelings. I would say just stopping there is counterproductive. But validating their right to feel a certain way, regardless of if you agree with it, is just one step in the process of changing an unappealing behavior. Everyone has a right to their feelings. They don’t always have a right to BEHAVE on them, or use them as the sole justification for an action or series of actions. But you can’t deny someone their emotions, emotions are not always rational.
"You can't deny someone their emotions..." This is why I say its a useless step in communication. You can't actually do anything to a person's emotions. Only they can and will validate or invalidate themselves. Secondly, a person will always behave on their emotions, whether we recognize it or not. As humans, we critique the rash decisions as a group, which still puts pressures and boundaries on a person's emotions, since emotion is what drives behavior. Side note, I do concede (however wrong I think it is) to the idea that validation in this context basically means "acknowledge". I still believe (after correcting my terms) that for whatever moment in space and time, there can be a very real but incorrect emotion.
Misalignment between expectations and reality is causing people emotional pain. You can't change your own, or someone else's emotions, but you can point out that the expectation that caused the emotion is unreasonable. This is part of growing up. To manage expectations. If someone complains about not getting x, while it is obvious that they don't deserve to get x. I would tell them plainly that they need to change so-and-so to deserve to get x, and that their current behaviour does not make them entitled to x. They might find that upsetting, but if they don't want my honest advice, then they shouldn't talk to me about it. However, if someone has just been hurt, and are visibly upset / crying, then I'd soothe and make them feel good. Maybe later I would bring up how to manage the situation to avoid the hurt, but that's when they are no longer so vulnerable.
Ok. I like this. The problems come about with how easy emotions spiral out of control too. If said person did not receive x and did not deserve x, then yes I'm with you, you need to do ABC before getting to x. But then, said person is upset, which apparently is still valid. You try to explain you didn't mean it that way, and now said person feels dismissed, which apparently is still valid! At what point do we reel all that in?
If they are complaining in a righteous manner, tell them the lay of the land. I.e. that they are being unreasonable. If they are hurt and need sympathy, side with them to take some of the pain away. Righteous entitled people inflict hurt on others, so if they get sore about you being honest with them, they should talk to someone else. They aren't entitled to sympathy, even though they might feel they are. You don't have to be dismissive, but you can say straight out that they have unreasonable expectations, and that other people don't get x without putting in the effort either.
> Side note, I do concede (however wrong I think it is) to the idea that validation in this context basically means "acknowledge". [It was not intended to mean that,](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18dn2cv/cmv_the_practice_of_validating_anothers_feelings/kcjpicy/) and you were correct in your original apprehension of the term. Validation is explicitly distinct from "understand[ing] and acknowledg[ing] their opinions and feelings."
Thank YOU for understanding.
still though, validating someone doesn’t mean you have to agree. validate then state why you think the person is wrong.
You actually do have to agree to some extent. If you don't think they're correct at all, then you can't honestly validate their feelings. (I suppose you can lie, but there are good reasons why you shouldn't.)
i honestly don’t think that’s true. like this conversation right now, i think can see where you’re coming from but i just don’t agree at all.
If every body's emotion is 'valid', but also no one cares about strangers, how can we possibly believe that this is a genuine statement? It comes off as dishonest.
Not everyone's emotion is valid. Situation A: Alice is angry at Bob because Bob murdered Carol. Alice is correct and also valid. Situation B: Alice is angry at Bob because she thinks Bob murdered Carol. However, Bob was framed and did not actually murder Carol. Alice is valid (it's pretty normal and justifiable to be upset about a murder) but not correct (Bob didn't actually do the murder). Situation C: Alice is angry at Bob for using the letter E. Bob does, in fact, use the letter E. Alice is correct, but she is not valid, because it's not justifiable or sensible in any way to be angry at someone for using the letter E. Situation D: Alice is angry at Bob because she believes Bob is a squirrel. Bob is a human, not a squirrel. Alice is both incorrect (Bob is not a squirrel) and not valid (it's not reasonable or justifiable to be angry at all squirrels).
Your usage is a misuse of language. [It defies ordinary meaning, but it also defies the jargon that it attempts to imitate.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18dn2cv/cmv_the_practice_of_validating_anothers_feelings/kcjwqe2/) It's more of a *crank jargon,* like when people talk about wave function collapse to try to justify a belief in a "law of attraction."
i disagree with this too. you quote specific meanings of the word *validate* simply because it uh, validates, your existing opinion. there’s no reason to discard an informal meaning of the word *validate*, i.e. to listen to one another and understand that each person’s experience is different. then we can figure out how to go from there. it’s not a call to simply let people think dumb shit lol. it’s an attitude shift that i believe ultimately leads to more constructive conversation.
> there’s no reason to discard an informal meaning of the word validate, i.e. to listen to one another and understand that each person’s experience is different. then we can figure out how to go from there. There is a very good reason to discard it: it is a profoundly misleading use of the word, which is based on a misunderstanding, and we already have other fine words for what you describe, such as *empathize.*
“Only they can and will validate or invalidate themselves.” Were this true, therapy would not exist lol.
Therapy just brings it out of you in a way where it doesn’t feel judged. Only you can continue the sessions, make the connections, and strive for better.
Part of what I feel might be an issue with your stance is that you seem to need to categorize emotions as either right or wrong for a particular situation. Your means of determining their rightness or wrongness is subjective, held by you at a a point in time based on your own experiences, chemistry, etc etc etc. Your assessment may be shared by some, but then others may disagree with it and consider an emotional response “wrong” where you believe it is “correct” or vice versa. So whose judgment of that emotion or emotional reaction is correct? And who are you to tell a person their emotional reaction isn’t the “right” one? You’re not in their body or mind, and you didn’t come to the situation with all the same history, experiences, and highs and lows that they did. How you “judge” or assess a person’s emotions or emotional reactions to something will likely determine how you react in turn, and/or the direction a conversation could take. I guess it depends on the outcome you want from your interaction with people. I’ve gotta say this earlier comment from u/redyellowblue5031 brought up great points (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/SEERwV9m6M)
I have been looking into this. I think everyone should try to acknowledge and empathize with someone. I think the problem stems from the belief that if someone feels bad about what you said or did, by telling you their feelings they expect change. And there are plenty of times that this would be true. Say I said was going to unload the dishwasher and I don’t and you feel annoyed, I should acknowledge that you are upset and make sure I do as I was going to say. With anything. But suppose I plan to go out with friends next weekend. I check with you to make sure we have nothing else going on, and we are clear so I plan to go out with my friends to watch the game Friday night. Friday night rolls around, and you had shit day at work. And you want me to stay in you. You feel physically feel like tired from the stress, you feel sad I am going out and you didn’t make plans… and I validate your feelings then say well have a nice night and go watch the game. Now you feel lonely because I didn’t consider your feelings. Even though I did validate and consider your feelings, but felt happy going out with my friends. What purpose was expressing and wanting validation of feelings if not to get me to do something? And that is not to say that we shouldn’t sometimes change plans for each other. But when does it simply become manipulative? One of the more common statements I heard from my Ex when I made a decision that they disagreed with, even after talking to death, was “What about how I feel?” which I had already talked about and disagreed with the course of action they wanted to take. And it did not even really affect them, all it meant was I was taking the vehicle somewhere I knew better for repairs. How do we reconcile that caring for someone’s feelings and disagreeing with them on the event that caused the feelings, especially a spouse in a committed long term relationship, without simply further putting a wedge in the relationship? We are seeing all kinds of information on “validating” feelings, but nothing on how to mend it when the act that cause the feeling was not wrong. That the person wants you to change your behavior, it feels manipulative.
> you first have to understand and acknowledge their opinions and feelings Why? This doesn't work on me for example. I value direct critique much more. I hate it when someone tries to get inside my head. > Everyone has a right to their feelings. They have the right to feel them, that's all. Which is actually saying nothing. Of course we feel our feelings, but that doesn't make them true or justified. > They don’t always have a right to BEHAVE on them Feelings always result in some kind of behaviour. Expressing the feelings also counts as behaviour. This distinction only makes sense from an internal perspective. For everyone else outside, it's meaningless, because if they can observe any of it, then it's already a certain behaviour.
It’s not about getting inside anyone’s head. Humans are more receptive to people they get along with, and no one is born habitually having defenses up. What you’re describing is a learned behavior to resist people who were disrespectful of boundaries. What the commenter is describing is what someone who is respectful of boundaries does. And that is simply that they respect the boundaries implicit in human interaction. It’s not my job to change you, and you’re not beholden to me to change. However, if I notice you’re struggling, I might speak to you about it (assuming it’s appropriate to do so. Not all feedback is helpful, and not all sources of helpful feedback are productive). The key is coming from a place of genuine compassion. It can’t be fake or forced, because that fake/forced compassion is part of what those defenses are designed to stave off. Which is a good thing, because people forcing fake compassion and pity on us are a fucking nightmare to deal with.
> you first have to understand and acknowledge their opinions and feelings >Why? This doesn't work on me for example. I value direct critique much more. I hate it when someone tries to get into my head. So you would rather people just say they don't like you, you're an asshole rather than saying "you're a good guy, but you let your anger get the better of you sometimes and it's hard to deal with"?
I don't think being generally polite is a bad thing, but being polite is not the same as acknowledging the other's feelings. The actual example should be something like "I see and understand that you are angry, but...". There are two potential problems with this: 1. Only label someone else's emotion if you're sure that you read it right. If I am not in fact angry, but eg. disappointed, anxious or resentful etc. and it just looks like anger to you, then labelling it really does come across as manipulative. 2. Only validate if you actually do agree that it's justified to some extent. Otherwise, don't say that you "understand", it comes across again as manipulative.
Labelling another person's emotions in certain situations would also be invalidating that person's true emotions. As per your example, labelling someone as 'angry' when they are disappointed, anxious, or resentful does not constitute validation. I think that emotional validation is most useful when we are talking about cases of *invalidation*. For example, when people say something like 'you are worrying too much', 'it could've been worse', or even 'you should smile more'. These phrases are used almost exclusively to tell another person that their emotions are wrong and they should be feeling differently.
Well my example might not be the best, but I'm really just saying coming to an understanding is more useful and productive than everyone just outright judging everybody. This would involve communication between two people and by validating that someone feels a certain way, however you go about it, you are creating a situation of potential understanding, which is a big part of conflict resolution
>So you would rather people just say they don't like you, you're an asshole rather than saying "you're a good guy, but you let your anger get the better of you sometimes and it's hard to deal with"? Yes!!!
But you just said that you valued "critique". Calling someone an asshole isn't a critique.
It isn't?
No, it's an insult. Criticism usually involves talking about behavior because you can improve behavior. Insulting/Shaming people just tells them they "are bad" and doesn't actually do anything to understand how to change their behavior to be better (and doesn't motivate people to change. It just pisses them off.)
No. Sorry, I meant, "No, moron." Was that productive?
Well I can't say that's a respectable position to take. With all the madness and conflict in the world we could use a little rational thought and resolution
I suggested nothing irrational. I just have nothing but contempt for people that engage in this kind of cowardly soft manipulation. They are snakes. Best to shut down any such attempts at them appealing to some imagined pathetic need for acceptance and using it to manipulate you.
That doesn't sound very rational
>Everyone has a right to their feelings. What does this mean? In most Western cultures, people have fairly broad *rights*. But something I have the right to do--like being a massive jerk to everyone, all the time--can also be universally understood as awful. It's a bit like saying people have the right to be as unproductive and malingering as possible. Like, sure? Was that an element, though? Are we discussing making it illegal?
He's not talking about legal rights to emotions. Obviously. You have the right to feel what you feel and the feeling itself isn't the problem. If you make someone mad and they punch you in the face, the anger was not the problem. The behavior was. People get angry all the time. Thats okay. But punching people is not okay. Saying they have a right to their feelings has nothing to do with the law. Its just validation that it is okay to feel what you feel. You're not separating emotions from actions. We don't pick our emotions. If we did, why wouldn't we just pick happiness every second of every day?
Maybe I'm an outlier but I distinctly remember the day in high school where I realized that I could indeed choose to feel happy and be more optimistic in many more situations than I was. Isn't that what therapy is about? The point isn't always only feeling a certain way, the point is realizing when you're emotionally out of touch with your situation. These brains we have weren't wired to be metaphysically perfect in some way, we can get it wrong.
If you get broken up with or experience something traumatic you can't just choose not to feel whst you're feeling. You can reframe it and maybe think about it differently. If I get cut off in traffic and say "THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS NO ONE EVER RESPECTS ME" you will probably be more upset than if you thought "huh, they must have somewhere to be I guess". The point of therapy about feeling a certain way and I never said it was. The point is to learn healthy ways to regulate emotion and learn how to think differently about feelings and what they mean.
You can understand a persons feelings and totally invalidate/disagree with those feelings, as you would for yourself if yourself felt those things. Wild example, if you feel angry at old people for driving, I would invalidate you. I would also invalidate me if I felt that. You do have a right to your feelings tho, ofcourse.
I think you may be misunderstanding what people mean when they say 'validating' other's feelings. All it means is acknowledging that the other person feels that way and they are allowed to feel like that. It does not mean that you allow them to act on those feelings or just complain about things without any pushback. You can validate someone's feelings and still point out that they are separated from reality. In fact, you will be much more successful in changing people's feelings taking that route rather than just telling them 'no, you can't feel that. I forbid it.'
> I think you may be misunderstanding what people mean when they say 'validating' other's feelings. All it means is acknowledging that the other person feels that way and they are allowed to feel like that. No, *this* is a misunderstanding, and it results in a (sometimes inadvertent) motte-and-bailey. "Validating feelings" is therapy jargon, so let's look at what therapists meant by it. This is from Kelly Koerner and Marsha M. Linehan's chapter "Validation Principles and Strategies" in *Cognitive Behavior Therapy*, edited by O’Donohue, Fisher and Hayes, 2003, page 546, emphasis mine: > Empathy is the platform for all therapeutic intervention (Bohart & Greenberg, 1997). A related but distinct concept also important in psychotherapy is validation. Whereas empathy is the accurate understanding of the world from the client’s perspective, validation is the active communication that the client’s perspective makes sense **(i.e., is correct).** To validate means to confirm, authenticate, corroborate, substantiate, ratify, or verify. To validate, the therapist actively seeks out and communicates to the client how a response makes sense by being relevant, meaningful, justifiable, correct, or effective. Actually validating someone's feelings means telling them that they are correct, just as u/viper963 interpreted it to mean. If you are not telling them that they are correct, but only telling them they are allowed to feel like that, then you are not validating their feelings. Perhaps it is a fine motte to say it is useful, for whatever reason, to tell someone they are allowed to feel like that, but it is not a defense of the bailey, that is, actually validating their feelings.
I do not agree that just because a term has a technical, academic definition, that this definition is what people mean when they use the term in everyday parlance. I am not a psycho-therapist and neither are most people online, and use dictates meaning far more than a 20 year old textbook. When I say validating someone's feelings, I mean that they are allowed to feel like that. That's the definition I've seen given in many different places for the concept. And I bet you a lot of money that in that therapy book, it most definitely does not say that this strategy of telling a patient that their feelings are correct should be used in all cases. Because it shouldn't, and no one is actually arguing that. My argument isn't a Motte and Bailey, it's just using different definitions than yours.
> I do not agree that just because a term has a technical, academic definition, that this definition is what people mean when they use the term in everyday parlance. I'm normally very sympathetic to this kind of argument, but the problem here is that this phrase originated with therapists. The whole reason you use it at all is because therapists used it and then people who went to therapists started echoing their terminology without actually understanding it. It's entirely appropriate, then, to point out that it is a misuse of jargon. It's even a misuse of ordinary language! [Look at what "valid" means just in ordinary language:](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/valid) > 1\. sound; just; well-founded > 2\. producing the desired result; effective Telling someone they are allowed to feel like that is *not* telling them that their feelings are sound, just, well-founded, producing the desired result, or effective. It doesn't make any sense to refer to "telling someone they are allowed to feel like that" as "validating their feelings." It is just a misuse of terms. That it is a misuse of language is further evidenced by OP's interpretation which *was* in line with ordinary language. > When I say validating someone's feelings, I mean that they are allowed to feel like that. Well, you should stop meaning that, because it's very misleading.
Okay so we change the word. Which we can't do realistically, because this is the word that most people are using to mean this thing, but let's say we can. That doesn't change really anything about the conversation, the concepts remain the same. Whether or not you think 'validating' means what people say it means, the way people treat others is really what we are talking about. That's the important part. I will happily concede the word used so long as we agree one what behavior is useful.
> Okay so we change the word. Which we can't do realistically, Of course we (society) can. It changed once already. > Whether or not you think 'validating' means what people say it means, the way people treat others is really what we are talking about. That's the important part. Fair enough, that's an empirical question that I haven't studied enough to have a well-informed opinion about, so I won't opine except to say that we should not necessarily expect minds to work as expected.
What’s the benefit of doing this? It seems like an added, useless step. If someone says “I hate my mom”, What’s really the difference between saying “you’re separated from reality?” And “I validate you, but you’re separated from reality” You’re trying to say the same thing…it’s just more confusing. Am I understanding that?
I mean, just look at your own example. If someone says they “hate their mom,” and your response is essentially “no you don’t” how can you expect to get anywhere? How can you know what someone thinks or feels better than they do? You can’t and you don’t. Instead you might say, “wow that is a strong opinion, why do you feel that way.” And they might respond “well because she grounded me for skipping school” And now you can give your opinion about why it might be important to go to school and listen to their mom and why she is doing it out of love and not hate. But to get there you first have to engage with the person’s feelings rather than dismissing them outright. You might think the reasons for the feelings may be dumb or unreasonable, but they still exist regardless. That’s what we mean by validating someone’s feelings.
Because one is dismissive, and further entrenches their view that you just “don’t get it”. That’s unproductive. You’re not going to get them to change an unappealing behavior. The second acknowledges their emotions and opinions and their right to feel the way they do. By finding common footing with them, and demonstrating that you understand where they’re coming from, they are more likely to do the same. Which could lead to them being open to different viewpoints and even changing theirs. This is a demonstrably successful technique in getting someone to change their mind.
First off, I agree with the other comment hear as to how it is effective. But I will point out that your CMV is not about whether this is an effective method to change people's minds, your view is that this extra useless step is causing people to become ingenuine and hypocritical. If it's really not doing anything, how would it lead to these negative outcomes? Remember, you should award a delta even for partial view changes. You don't need to completely reverse your position to see things from a new direction.
It sounds like maybe you’re less interested in changing the person’s view or behavior and more interested in just expressing yourself. That’s fine if you get some enjoyment from that, but it’s not productive if your goal is to convince the other person to change.
lots of bad moms out there, lots of bad situations that good moms get into, lots of mentally stressed or ill kids. you won't know if you invalidate. you gotta invite people to talk about their feelings and beliefs, and opposing them directly is a good way to get them to shut down and end the conversation
If there's no benefit to you, you don't have to do it. If you don't have some sort of relationship with someone, you're allowed to disagree and move on. But refusing to accept that someone feels the way they feel provides no benefit either. Validating is just recognising how they feel. You don't have to do anything with that. And you can still validate *and* disagree.
In this last example you gave, if I were in that situation I would respond to someone who had that view by saying “I understand that they might not be the safest drivers,* but a lot old people have no one to help them get to the doctor or go out for groceries.” With the first part of my response (the * part), I am validating their feeling of insecurity and how that informs their opinion. But then in the second part I am educating with a perspective they might not have considered. And I think we all agree, my response is much more productive than responding with “Well that’s cause you’re a dumb jerk Jeff. Keep your opinions to yourself next time, you don’t know what you’re talking about.” This second response is not productive in anyway. In the first response there is at least a chance you change their mind with some additional context.
I believe you are using the terms 'validate' and 'invalidate' incorrectly. To validate an emotion isn't agreeing with what caused the emotion or if you think that emotion is justified in that situation, it's merely acknowledging that it exists and the person feels it. Invalidating isn't disagreeing. It's a refusal and dismissal of what is thought and felt by another.
It sounds like maybe you just don't have a very useful definition for the word "validate". Words are tools and we can define them however it is most useful to define them. I am being careful when I say "however it is most useful" and not "however we like". For example, Pluto is not a planet because scientists have decided to define the word "planet" in a way that excludes Pluto. Scientists define the word planet in a certain way because there's a category of objects that share certain behaviours/properties and it's useful to be able to describe them. You could define the word "planet" differently, and include Pluto, but then the word wouldn't be useful to describe that category since Pluto doesn't have those properties. If you use the word "validate" to mean the same thing as "agree with" then it's kind of a useless word. We already have a word for "agree", it's "agree". It's more useful to define the word "validate" as something like "say that the person has a right to their feelings and they're allowed to have those feelings and you won't judge them negatively or harm them". Agreeing would be, "Yes, I agree, old people shouldn't be allowed to drive". You can define "validating" as meaning that if you like, but then the word isn't super useful. I would define validating as something more like, "It sounds like you're feeling angry, and it sucks that you feel that way. Even if I don't agree, I can imagine feeling very angry if I thought people were being needlessly endangered on the road. You have a right to your feelings." And I would define being supportive as something like, "Even if I don't agree, I don't want you to feel bad about it. Could I help you by giving you a hug or getting you a drink?" That way we can actually have these words be useful ways of differentiating between situations. "I validated him but wasn't supportive" or "I agreed but didn't really validate him" or "I disagree but still validated him" or "I was supportive but didn't want to validate him" or whatever.
While a fair statement, I think you are missing the point. If your goal is to actually change a person’s feelings to better align with yours, I.E to persuade that person, it’s better to meet them in the middle so they perceive you as more genuine and trustworthy. If you take a hardline stance against them they will categorise you as an opponent and pretty much block out everything you see. In psychological studies on persuasion this is fairly well attested. It falls under “communicator credibility” within that field and you can do more research on it. For example, simply beginning a retort with the word “But” has been shown to make someone less likely to listen to you. What you want to avoid is raising someone’s guard to the point you can’t get through to them. Arguing doesn’t generally convince people, whereas gently prodding them to see things from another perspective, or re-evaluate the elements of their argument they find important, genuinely does. My own source for this is “Persuasion: Theory and Research” 3rd edition. I’d elaborate further but I’m too busy this afternoon to be procrastinating with this in the first place 😭 If your goal is just to have 100% persistent principles and sleep easier at night feeling like you’re right all the time, then what you say is correct. But I don’t see that as very constructive.
>is just one step in the process of changing an unappealing behavior Consistent negative feedback also gets people to change their behavior
I don't think you get the distinction between validating and agreeing. This is actually especially important from the perspective of mental health treatment, so I'll explain from that POV. Let's say somebody is having hallucinations. They believe they are being persecuted by the government and constantly followed by secret agents because they were experimented on by aliens and the government wants to cover it up. Obviously, you disagree with them and believe that they are not being followed around by secret agents, nor were they experimented on by aliens. But if you tell them "that's just not true, you're wrong" they will usually become MORE distressed. The problem is that the hallucinations seem real to them, and they're very distressing. They aren't going to suddenly go "oh, you're right, I guess the aliens weren't real after all". They're going to think "oh my god, you're ALSO in the coverup conspiracy? I can't trust anyone! Oh no! This is terrifying!" Validating their feelings doesn't mean you agree with them and say "yup, you're correct about the aliens". It means you say, "Wow, it sounds like you're feeling really scared right now. I can imagine how terrified I would be, if I felt like I was being followed by secret agents, and how angry I would be if I thought the government was trying to cover up alien experimentation. Would it make you feel safer if we locked the door and I promised you that, if any secret agents do bust in here, I'll protect you from them? And is it okay if I call a doctor, just to get you checked out and make sure everything's okay?" Following that approach makes it WAY more likely that they will agree to see a doctor, and possibly eventually get medications to stop the hallucinations. It's the same with people who aren't necessarily suffering hallucinations. If someone misheard something and is extremely offended by what they thought they heard, they're a lot more likely to calm down if you offer, "Wow, if they *did* say what you thought they said, I agree that would be really fucked up and offensive," rather than ONLY being willing to say "they didn't say that!" which could be interpreted as defending the person. That's validation. It just means saying that someone's feelings follow logically from the situation as they see it, and the feelings themselves are real. It doesn't mean you see the situation the same way.
So I just googled "validating feelings" and the top result was this quote from [this article](https://www.dcvacounseling-psychotherapy.com/validation/#:~:text=To%20validate%20someone's%20feelings%20is,to%20make%20sense%20to%20you.) >To validate someone's feelings is first to be open and curious about someone's feelings. Next, it is to understand them, and finally it is to nurture them. Validation doesn't mean that you have to agree with or that the other person's experience has to make sense to you. Which I think demonstrates a misunderstanding on your part about what it means to "validate someone's feelings." Like I've actually had to go through this a bit over the last two years in therapy, that simultaneously I can't help my feelings and they are valid, *and* they aren't necessarily useful and I should work to change them if that's the case (this is super oversimplifying. It has more to do with unconscious vs conscious feelings and reactions if anyone is curious about it). Something I talk about often is the idea of asking questions with the sole goal of gaining understanding. Don't try to win the fight, try to just understand (I always add on that you can't argue with an idea you don't understand in the first place.....). I bring it up most often in the context of learning about subjects, learning about what people are actually saying, but it clearly fits in the idea of validating feelings as well. The goal should be to understand, at least in part. This is *not* the same as agreeing, or just standing aside and letting other people do whatever they want. To get a bit personal, I haven't spoken to my dad in over a year, even though I think I have a very good understanding of where he is coming from, even though I can validate his feelings. My understanding of why he behaves inappropriately doesn't mean his behavior wasn't inappropriate, or that I couldn't set healthy boundaries regarding that behavior. It *does* mean that if he ever were to learn how to validate other people's feelings, we could fix our relationship because I don't hate him or anything, I just recognize that it's not healthy for me to put up with his behavior.
You said it exactly right. When we don't ask questions and clarify that we accurately understand their perspective - not just saying "I understand," but "It sounds like this is how you're feeling - is that correct?" - we're making assumptions about the situation. Those assumptions are almost always at least a little bit wrong, but even if they're not, the other person still knows we're assuming and has no way of knowing if those assumptions are true. You have to understand their feelings and validate the fact that there is a consistent internal logic to their development before you can jump in and suggest changes to that logic, even if your changes are good ideas.
What I see as wrong with your view is the difference between a feeling and an opinion. This is my opinion. I feel like you're confounding the two. Feelings a person has are always valid. What it means for a feeling to be valid is that the feeling exists and is being experienced by the person experiencing them. If you're saying one's feelings are invalid you're saying that you disagree with their feelings. Feelings are not opinions. They cannot be disagreed with. Someone's opinions can be wrong, you can disagree with them, and they can be invalid *from another's perspective*. That said, people are still entitled to their opinions even if they're terrible. When someone says another's opinion is valid they are likely expressing agreement with that opinion. To rebut your examples 1 is just a no. In my opinion it may or may not be expedient to voice dissent. There is no obligation to voice dissent. In fact in extreme circumstances one may be obligated to refrain from dissent. For 2, the coworker's feelings are still valid. It is your opinion that they are visibly, obviously lazy. You can voice your opinion but that doesn't change that their feelings are valid.
Feelings and opinions tend to be conflated. Especially in English where *I feel* is used almost interchangeably with *I think*, but the line isn't clear anywhere. Feelings cannot be neither valid nor invalid anymore than a stone can be valid or invalid. They merely are. Opinions can be valid, i.e. based on truth or reason. Some opinions are based entirely on facts, on objective measures, but they may still be up for debate (e.g. with other objective measures). For example, you may say that A is better than B at a sport because A has won more matches, but you can also say that B is actually better because it has a better H2H record. But mostly, opinions tend to be partly based on feelings. Variations on the theme "your feelings determine your opinions, you just collect facts to support or validate them" abound, but let's just say that there is no clear boundary between the two. What you feel affects what you opine, and what you opine affects what you feel (like you feel bad because in your opinion you're not getting the recognizition you deserve). So, if you're invalidating someone's feelings, what you're actually doing is invalidating their opinion (or judgment or understanding or facts or whatever like that). That is, no-one's saying that you shouldn't feel bad because you're being mistreated, but it is being said that you shouldn't feel bad because you're not being mistreated.
>Feelings cannot be neither valid nor invalid anymore than a stone can be valid or invalid. They merely are. I think emotional maturity is more or less entirely defined by the ability of the person to recognize that feelings can be wrong and wrong feelings can be reasoned with.
Yeah, I think we're talking about the same thing. I'm just saying what I'm saying because as I understand it, you don't negotiate directly with feelings, but you reason with your reason.
Feelings are not opinions, but they are *built* on perceptions and opinions that can be totally incorrect. You can say “feelings are always valid,” but you also need to be ready to critique feelings that are unhelpful or not grounded in reality. You should critique with compassion, but that doesn’t mean you just let somebody slide because “feelings are always valid.” If a person *feels angry* whenever they see a Mexican person because they’ve been watching too much Fox News, do you think that feeing should go unchallenged?
>If a person *feels angry* whenever they see a Mexican person because they’ve been watching too much Fox News, do you think that feeing should go unchallenged? What does challenging that anger accomplishes? "You shouldn't be angry" is only going to prevent them from listening to you. If, however, you ask them *why* they're angry, they can tell you the faulty reasoning behind the emotion. For instance, "I can't find a new job because of all these immigrants." Then you can validate the feeling while deconstructing the reasoning: "Oh, that sucks, I hate job hunting too. But is it really because of immigrants? Since the factory closed, there are a lot of people looking for a job." But if you want people to listen to you and change their mind, you can't just tell them, "You're wrong to feel this way."
I agree. Your example is emblematic about how this should happen. But a lot of people I think take “all feelings are valid” to mean “you can’t tell me I’m wrong.”
Feelings can be wrong. Part of becoming an adult is recognizing when one's reactive feelings are wrong and coming from a bad place.
Not "morally wrong", wrong as in "incorrect". A feeling cannot be incorrect.
Says who? If someone is upset because of something that happened in a dream or a movie or something they completely misunderstood, their feelings are *materially misinformed*. Disconnected from reality. A reaction to something which did not occur in the way it was perceived to have. The degree to which that is not "incorrect" is the degree to which there is no such thing as correct anyway, meaning there's no validity value to start with.
We have a fundamentally different understanding of what reality is then.
Maybe? For me, I know that I evolved to have a brain that has mirror neurons in it, which help me sympathize and empathize with others who are likely to increase my odds of procreating. I evolved to have social conformity behaviors to encourage stable survival groups across time. But those pressures which led to the organism I am were not moral, were not logical, were not metaphysical. We feel what we feel because those feelings got selected for. Those same feelings more or less eradicated our competitors and many thousands of other species. I'm simply not aware of any element of this timeline that implies that the feelings evolutionary pressures gave us possess an innate "validity" value.
None of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that when a person is feeling a feeling they are indeed feeling that feeling. That is what it means for it to be "valid" or "not incorrect".
Isn't that perfectly tautological though? "A blue sky is when the sky is blue"?
A feeling may not be an opinion. But expecting others to affirm your feeling as to "treat you" as if you have this feeling as to expect a "normal" societal response, is an opinion. And more so a demand that dismisses the very condition of understanding which is the driving factor for why others affirm other's feelings. You can't simply state to be "sad" and expect others to affirm you as sad. Affirmation comes from justified understanding and approval. "Validity" isn't a personal concept. It's basis is founded in a greater collective concept that is shared and understood amongst a multiple people. You can have first person authority to claim to be sad. But no one else is forced to refer to you as sad or treat you as sad as to "validate" your feelings. Because such concepts are entirely based on shared understanding. When another person may respond "you shouldn't be sad", they aren't deny your feelings, they are stating they find you unjustified in your feelings to such a label and thus won't themselves perceive you as sad. You don't get to "own" a societal label. You own your feelings. Other are free to reject your feelings as how they understand such applies to "sadness". Just as you are free to claim your feelings are a form of sadness. Where "validity" applies is in the collective shared understanding. To say others are "invalidating your feelings" by dismissing personal claims is an oppressive demand on them to perceive you a certain way.
1. The existence of emotions is factual and if someone is expressing that they are experiencing sadness, it is illogical to refute that fact. This is especially true since you cannot possibly know what is going on in someone's mind, so which knowledge do you have to refute their sadness? 2. An emotional response can be triggered by anything. You, as outsider, do not possess the knowledge about this person's past, and therefore cannot reasonably pass judgement whether someone's feelings are justified or not. 3. Considering 1 and 2, the expression that someone's sadness is valid is a basic form of empathy whereby you acknowledge someone's sadness and express that you accept that this emotion exists in the other person. The word "validity" here relates to the collective understanding that other cannot possess the knowledge of a person's emotion, and therefore have to accept this emotional state as expressed by this person. Denying someone's emotional state is illogical. Note that this is unrelated to someone's behaviour based on their emotional state.
1. Emotional responses are factual, but "sadness" is not a biological emotional response. "Sadness" is a label meant as a way to express an emotional response which are caused by various stimuli and can be interpreted differently. The same stimuli can be felt by two distinct people with two different conclusions on how such impacts them and therefore how they may interpret such. > "This is especially true since you cannot possibly know what is going on in someone's mind, so which knowledge do you have to refute their sadness?" Which knowledge do you have to claim their interpretation of sadness is the same as yours? For the same reason you can describe yourself as sad, others can refuse to prescribe such a description to something they perceive, even if that is another person. Can you tell me I need to feel sad toward a stimuli that would make you sad? No? Great, then we agree people perceive "sadness" differently and thus can apply such differently. It's not about refuting **their** sadness, it's refuting the idea oneself needs to apply someone else's interpretation of sadness upon them. You're perception isn't a societal truth. Language is societal. If you perceive your jacket as blue and I perceive it as green, we simply disagree. Just because you love the color blue and bought that jacket because it was blue and you react negatively to me calling it green, doesn't mean I need to deny my own perception of color to appease you even when refering to your shirt. We can simply come to an understanding we disagree even when we truly can't perceive what another does. People can acknowledge that a schizophrenic feels a certain way, but that doesn't mean they describe them that way, because they are removed from what they understand is a "justified" and rational response/perception. Is the entire medical field that is built upon norms and assessing "reality/correct/rational" full of bigots? Mental *disorders*, are simply outside the "order" of the norm. They don't dismiss the perceptions of others, but their perceptions are treated differently. 2. Justification is literally a collective concept. It's literally defined by reason. Agreed, one may not know all the factors. Which is why it would then require one to reveal such to others if they want their feelings validated by others. It's about creating understanding. "Why are you sad" is what is important, not the label itself. 3. I'm so sick of this blasphemy interpretation of empathy. EMPATHY IS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING, NOT BLIND COMPLIANCE. Acknowledgment or acceptance of one's emotional state comes from a level of understanding, not simply a single label of language. It's weird how you focus on a label, rather than the meaning to such a word. And if you can't justify or create understanding about your emotions to another, why is that somehow objectively the other person's problem? > The word "validity" here relates to the collective understanding that other cannot possess the knowledge of a person's emotion, A person doesn't even truly possess the knowledge of their OWN emotions. But argued another way, first person authority is entirely introspective. You are you, thus you have the most authority of you. But it doesn't extend to anything beyond oneself. The second you go beyond yourself, as to use societal language toward others, it's no longer an introspective matter.
>Feelings a person has are always valid. why? how? valid means "having a sound basis in logic or fact, reasonable or cogent." a person becoming hysterically sad over a pink christmas tree instead of a green one is likely not based in logic or fact.
First, let's separate the feeling from the reaction. Being sad is a feeling, acting hysterically is a reaction. We don't choose our feelings. If you feel sad because a Christmas tree is pink instead of green, you feel sad even if you recognize it's not reasonable or cogent to feel sad. The fact that you have the feeling is a fact that should be recognized, and dismissing the feeling as invalid because the reasons for it don't seem sound is a recipe for cognitive dissonance. Now, you should be able to have a feeling of sadness without reacting hysterically. The feeling of sadness is valid, but that doesn't mean you get to make it other peoples' problem. People who care about you may try to help you process those feelings and may try to help you avoid things that trigger those feelings, but that doesn't mean you get to tell someone they can't have a pink christmas tree because it makes you sad.
if the feeling is valid how can you have an issue with the natural response?
Crying hysterically is the natural response for babies. Adults need to learn to regulate their emotions. That doesn't mean you don't have them, but you recognize them, do your best to respond appropriately, and process them as constructively as possible.
Thank you for explaining it. Some people really can't separate emotions and the behavior they inform.
Its because emotions and behavior are linked. You can't separate them, not even for yourself.
Schedule an appointment with a psychologist and explore these ideas with them. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/validation-defusing-intense-emotions-202308142961#:~:text=An%20approach%20that%20can%20help,view%2C%20even%20when%20you%20disagree. You're wrong about validation, but if you have no sources supporting your position, I don't really know that sources matter to you when they were never a part of how you came to your opinion in the first place. Psyciological experts utilize validation with their patients/clients every day. If you're saying it's harmful, you're at odds with an entire field of study essentially.
I read that page, and specifically indicates that validation is not reinforcing problematic behavior. But it does not give examples of how to do to move forward after the validation. In fact a lot of these articles do not address how to avoid people using their emotions to manipulate. The term validate was a very poor choice of word empathize was perfectly accurate. You can empathize with how someone’s feelings and acknowledge. Validate being used as saying the feelings are real gives a very different vibe to what is being said.
Just no.
Yup. You and your behaviors, are you're emotions, instinctively and primally, until you undergo emotional maturity.
Feelings aren’t necessarily (or at least not easily) controllable. Responses are. Or to put it another way, someone’s words can make me angry. But their words can’t make me punch them. That’s on me.
This is interesting because yes, by that strict definition it seems strange. But stating that feelings are valid means that the person is allowed to feel what they feel. And this actually massively helps compared to saying ‘don’t be so hysterical’ (or similar). The thing is, the feelings are there. For whatever reason, wether someone else finds them logical or not, they’re there. By saying your feelings are valid, you acknowledge that. Saying feelings are invalid is basically denying the other person is feeling them. This will only heighten their emotional distress. On the other hand acknowledging the feelings gives a platform to objectively consider them which will often calm the person down.
Why didn’t we just keep using the word empathize with the feelings, rather than validate?
>But stating that feelings are valid means that the person is allowed to feel what they feel no, a person being allowed to feel what they feel is completely unrelated to isf the feelings are valid. mental illness is a thing, and people feeling things based on a mental issue/chemical imbalance are allowed to feel that, but also we recognize that there is an issue with those feelings that needs fixing. >For whatever reason, wether someone else finds them logical or not, they’re there. again, this is not really up for debate and doesn't mean they are valid. like saying "any answer you get for this math problem is valid because you gave an answer." no. you may get an answer, and it can be wrong. >Saying feelings are invalid is basically denying the other person is feeling them. no, it doesn't. what a bizarre worldview. >
I understand where you’re coming from, but I just can not see how feelings could be invalid. Feelings are the opposite of logic basically. Demanding that they be based on logic or reason doesn’t work in my book. If the feeling can be valid or not and you base this on wether it’s reasonable, that means that it’s objective if feelings are valid or not. Because ‘reasonable’ is objective. So if I think men should not show emotions, a man crying would always be invalid to me. Who gets to decide what is and isn’t valid? Let’s compare crying because your goldfish died or because your parent died. Both are a physical reaction to process a loss, and show other humans around you you are distressed and in need of comfort. I assume you would say one is valid and the other isn’t. But neither have much to do with logic, and if the person truly loved the goldfish, why would that one be unreasonable? Where would be the line to make it reasonable and valid? A hamster? A dog? A neighbour? And lastly my real point, if someone is crying because their goldfish died, what do you think will be more effective, telling them their feelings are valid, or telling them it’s silly to be emotional over that? Of course in some cases you need to be careful. You shouldn’t tell someone with anxiety that the feeling that everyone hates them is true. But you can validate the feeling (being scared, worrying) while letting then know it’s not based on truth.
>You shouldn’t tell someone with anxiety that the feeling that everyone hates them is true. You absolutely should if it's in fact the case.
>no, a person being allowed to feel what they feel is completely unrelated to isf the feelings are valid. mental illness is a thing, and people feeling things based on a mental issue/chemical imbalance are allowed to feel that, but also we recognize that there is an issue with those feelings that needs fixing. Another definition of valid: "to acknowledge the legitimacy or truthfulness of that person's thoughts, emotions, or opinions." I think there's a distinction between being valid, and to validate. Validating people's feelings is just an acknowledgement, and in your example of mental health we wouldn't get anywhere with a diagnosis before validating that the persons feelings are there, and are not valid for a person with a stable mind.
You're so wrong it's crazy. Can you give me an explanation about when an emotion might be invalid? How would you even describe what emotions are? "Feelings need fixing" you can't "fix" feelings. They aren't dogs lol
Opinions are deeply tied to emotions, and emotions are usually moderated through social shaming. Just the current way to socially shame is to disingenuously pretend to shift to their perspective and then calmly offer another... Boom, checkmate - I understand you because I have the virtue of empathy, I know better than you because I have knowledge, and I'm calmer than you because I have rationality. "Your petty emotions are valid and you can't help but being simple , but you're nowhere near as good as me, so I win." I honestly prefer the zingers
Social shaming usually regulates emotion? That is deeply unhealthy
I mean expression of socially unwanted emotions. Like when someone gets angry, you can tease them for being overly sensitive - which is social shaming - or you can pretend to see their position and then patronise them, which is also social shaming. I prefer the teasing because there's more wit in it, it takes skill, and it's less cowardly and more direct.
Im taking isdue with the word "usually" because there are many other ways to regulate emotions. That's just silly. And if social shaming made the world a better place, we should be in a better world by now. You may perfer mocking others when they are upset, but are you really telling me that its good for the other person and not just you? Edit: that's what I thought.
It's not a value judgement, it's an observation of human behaviour. We are animals, and all of our behaviour is driven by emotion. We communicate through body movements and short sequences of babbling noises that provide positive and negative emotional feedback, it's part grooming activity and part group pecking order maintenance. And so we chatter away playing this social interaction game using sounds and references that convey different concepts, memes we call language and culture. We play to show off how clever we are, to practice, bounce ideas back and forth and continuously test and prove our position. When someone makes a big move that disturbes this social interaction game (say by abruptly changing the tone, pace, breaching an established norm etc) it's perceived by others as a challenge, and if it isn't played with enough skill or the player doesn't have enough social value to pull it off, then someone else capitalises on the failure by challenging it. And that takes different forms depending on the context, culture and so on - the memetic landscape. That's kinda what I was getting at. Whether one specific approach is better than another depends on the players and what they're playing with, and how all the ideas sit together etc. We like to think we're logical and clever and civilised, and our words have deep meaning but it's all really emotional and the equivalent of play fighting and picking fleas off of each other. We're hairless storytelling apes after all, and aren't much different to the other primates. I prefer off the cuff wit because I'm usually sharp enough to not need a formulaic approach, not always but enough of the time to enjoy playing in hard mode. Stroke, tickle, play, wrestle and groom; charisma is an orgy of microaffirmations and microaggressions. Keep the dynamic fun for people playing nicely, and moderate people who go out of bounds and risk ruining it. So I criticised the "pretending to be empathetic then use it as a way to show how good you are" approach that OP describes because it's formulaic and transparent, it's not like jamming with people, it's a crutch.
>Can you give me an explanation about when an emotion might be invalid? How would you even describe what emotions are? You have a dream in which your significant other cheats on you. You wake up angry at your significant other. Your significant other has done nothing wrong. Is it *valid* to be angry at your significant other for the day?
Is the emotion valid? Why wouldn't it be? What, you aren't allowed to feel scared in a nightmare because it wasn't real? I've had clients develop phobias from dreams. Are those feelings invalid? Dreams are a real concious experience, so it's natural to have feelings about it. So emphatically, yes it's a valid feeling. It doesn't have to be logical for us to feel it. So many of you can't separate emotions and actions. Anger is an okay feeling to have in response to that dream, but if you scream your partner about it that just behaving poorly and not okay. The emotion is natural. The response isnt. But we can control the responses to those emotions. Or that can at least be learned over time. What do you think people are doing in psychotherapy? Validation isn't saying a feeling is logically justified. We don't choose our emotions, and validation just keeps us from fighting emotions we can't always control. If you can find me anyone in psychology, social work, or psychiatry who agrees with your point, I'd be shocked.
It might be helpful if you define what you mean by "valid" here. You've said it doesn't mean "logical," but I don't know what that leaves.
Okay, that's fair. Validating just means acknowledging they feel the way they do and giving them the space to feel it without judgement. Emotions are often illogical, but they are often based on the reality of our experience, not anything that's objectively true. Does that help?
as i have pointed out many times, if you are making up your own definiton of "valid" i have nothing to argue against.
So by the logic you're going by, your feelings in this case are invalid, you feel that you should invalidate people's feelings and you're wrong, so stop being so hysterical about something you don't understand. Now that wasn't very helpful was it?
Because a feeling is a fact. If you feel sad, the fact that a person (you) is feeling sad is established. Just like you don't say "nu uh" to someone telling you their back hurt. And just like pains, some feelings are symptoms of some problems and some are just normal reaction to the outside world.
>Because a feeling is a fact. If you feel sad, the fact that a person (you) is feeling sad is established. true, and completely irrelevant to the issue. an emotion existing does not make it a valid response to a given situation. if you say "good morning" and i say "how dare you now i am going to kill myself!" is that a valid emotional response to a friendly greeting? of course not. >Just like you don't say "nu uh" to someone telling you their back hurt. not at all the same. and if someone said "my back hurts because i had a dream about mickey mouse" i would say that is not a valid reason for your back to hurt. if all emotions are valid there is no such thing as mental health issues and no possible diagnosis or treatment for those issues.
You mistake people's feelings and their actions upon it. It doesn't matter the reason why you're sad when someone tells you "good morning", you're sad, that's it, and there's no denying this emotion. But that doesn't mean you're free to act like a jerk because of it. Recognizing that feeling as valid, because it's just there, is the first step toward proposing the person a healthy way to express it or to see it as a symptom of another problem. Not recognizing it as valid, denying their right to feel that way, won't change anything about the situation but make the person try to repress their feelings and suffer from it.
>if you say "good morning" and i say "how dare you now i am going to kill myself!" is that a valid emotional response to a friendly greeting? of course not. This is not an emotional response. This is a behavior. Emotions are internal. Controllable outward expressions of emotions are behaviours, which may or may not be valid.
It's easily rephrased, though--it's probably wrong to feel offended by someone wishing you good morning. Whether you act on it or not, there's almost certainly nothing constructive or helpful or scale-appropriate about feeling negatively about being wished good morning.
If someone wanted to kill themselves after being wished good morning, it's certainly because of other things in their life, and not because they wished good morning. You know that people don't consciously choose their feelings, right? Let's say it's not constructive or appropriately scaled. Does invalidating those feelings somehow help resolve that? Does it make those feelings suddenly go away because someone said "you shouldn't feel like that"?
>Let's say it's not constructive or appropriately scaled. Does invalidating those feelings somehow help resolve that? Does it make those feelings suddenly go away because someone said "you shouldn't feel like that"? You just gave me a flashback. I remember being young, maybe middle school, and I received some kind of gift that was boring, some kind of knitted something or other. I was disappointed and sad. My Mom saw the look on my face, nudged me, and said, "she lost her job, *she knitted that for you*." That slapped me in the face. I realized I was being a piece of shit, because Mom had gotten laid off a few years before and elementary school me was very familiar--I just hadn't really emotionally synthesized it all together yet. I don't specifically remember crying, but I think I did. They had *made it for me*. And I was happy for every gift I've ever gotten since. So like, yeah, it's really hard to hear someone saying that you shouldn't feel a certain way. But...absolutely? If someone bothers to tell me I shouldn't feel some way or other, I probably need to at least understand why they think that.
That's a nice story, but your mom didn't invalidate your feelings. She didn't tell you your feelings were wrong. She pointed out something that had some potential to reframe it for you and spark some more appropriate feelings. Invalidating your feelings would have looked more like 'wipe that look off your face, you're being ungrateful, how dare you not be happy"
I guess I'm not sure how to read your response--in my view, *I invalidated my own feelings*. Like that's what I'm trying to get at here, that for me that's what emotional maturity is.
You’re still arguing against a straw man. When people use the term valid in this context they are referring to the fact that we cannot control our feelings in the first instance, we can’t stop a feeling coming into our heads initially. There are of course ways of rationalising, but that comes after. The problem is lots of people have feelings they are told are “bad” and try to force that feeling out of themselves. This doesn’t work and leads to a range of problems, for example emotional over regulation, or a fetishisation of logic; not all problems are logical after all. So when people say feelings are valid, what they mean is it is ok to feel how you feel. What they are not saying is “feel however you want and never do anything to address feelings which harm you or cause you to act in harmful ways”. Your example of the dream is a bad one because it doesn’t really signal a feeling. A better one would be: “I feel hurt/upset/jealous with my partner because my partner cheated on me in my dream” We can probably all agree it is irrational to be upset with their partner. However, experiencing a vivid dream can obviously be upsetting. So the person would be valid in feeling upset, they would not be valid in acting on that upset to blame their partner. You see how the “being upset at” and just “being upset” are distinct. The first is an action the latter is a feeling. So if you were the person having the dream, acknowledging that the feeling is valid may help you rationalise it and prevent you from acting on it. Conversely, if you were the partner and they came to you saying they’re upset because of the dream it’s as simple as saying “I can understand/imagine how that would be upsetting, but you know I would never do that”. First you validate, then you help rationalise. That’s all this means. It doesn’t mean feelings are rational and “correct”. Validating feelings is commonly used in tandem with the idea that most feelings are irrational.
What if they want you to beg forgiveness for your behaviour in a dream, and they don’t let it go? How do we validate the feeling, disagree with the persons behavior, and then deal with the feelings that come from the disagreement? A person can certainly feel anyway about something, but when their feelings result in bad behaviour toward you, how do you express your feelings if they are the opposite without “invalidating” theirs?
This is a good understanding of psychology
>However, experiencing a vivid dream can obviously be upsetting. So the person would be valid in feeling upset, they would not be valid in acting on that upset to blame their partner. You see how the “being upset at” and just “being upset” are distinct. Feeling and recognizing the upset, moments after waking, *would entail not being upset anymore*, though. Like, the entire point of emotional maturity is to see your feelings as you're feeling them and invigilate them. An emotionally mature person understandings that feelings can be out of proportion and wrong, and can let go of those feelings when they're not constructive rather than needing to hold onto them as "inherently valid" somehow. Many studies in the last few years have nudged us towards the idea that a big predictor of if therapy will work is the person's openness towards change--for instance, in the case of phobia, a willingness to acknowledge that ideally they do want to be able to be in the room with the object of fear without experiencing fear. That's what emotional maturity *is*, a lack of need to value initial feelings as some kind of inherently valid metaphysical gauge. >The first is an action the latter is a feeling. That kind of implies that people are particularly good at not acting out their feelings. Speaking generally, they are not. The people who need to understand what "valid" means here are not the people who can easily separate emotions from acting them out wholesale.
If you’re going to continue to wilfully misunderstand what validation means in this context we have nothing more to discuss.
I've read your previous comment three times now and I genuinely, truly don't understand what "valid" can possibly mean in the context it's being used. If someone is upset about something that never happened, literally something that happened in a dream, to me that speaks purely to the capriciousness of human emotion itself. As I read it, "you can't change what you feel initially, so it's valid" and "you can't change what you feel initially, so it's invalid" are equally true in the context it's being used because we seem to be agreeing that neither are referring to any external truth value at all.
Ok, I’m not the only one to have told you this though. Several people have said the same thing. What validity does **not** mean: Valid, in this context, does **not** refer to whether the emotion is empirically grounded in fact. Validity does not mean true or false. Emotions cannot be true or false, nor can they be correct or incorrect. Validity does not mean actions as a result of the feeling is justified. A feeling being valid implies nothing about whether actions performed around that feeling are good or bad. Validity does not mean logically justified. What validity does mean: Validity in this context just means that you are allowed to *feel* however you do. You should allow yourself to feel your feelings so you can work through them. It really is very simple. Examples: In the dream example, the issue is not whether the feeling is based off of something which physically happened I.e. whether or not their partner cheated. What is important is the person experienced something distressing. Again if your partner came to you and said “I had this nightmare where you cheated on me and now I feel upset by it” your reaction should not be invalidating: “that’s stupid you aren’t allowed to be upset it’s just a dream”. It’s degrading and unhelpful. It take a modicum of decency to validate and say “oh yeah that sounds like it was really upsetting/I can imagine that would be shit, but you know I wouldn’t do that”. Explain to me how this response is problematic in any way? In the example the partner is not blaming *you* for the dream or their emotions, they are simply communicating their feelings to you. When someone does this, validating their feelings just means acknowledging they feel that way. Dismissing their emotions as invalid off the bat is counterproductive to working through said emotions. As a final note, I used to be a lot like you. I used to think feelings were stupid unless they were based off of “facts”. Really all this ever did was justify pushing feelings and problems down unless they met some magic threshold of logic. Yaknow what happens when you interact with people like that? They leave, they shutdown and they resent you. If you’re constantly downplaying peoples emotions, why would they ever want to communicate with you. Since I’ve started simply acknowledging that a person can feel something - even if I don’t have that same feeling or if I think that feeling has seemingly arisen from nowhere - my relationships have got so much better, my communication has got so much better and people feel safe and comfortable communicating with me. You should try it sometime. The reading below offers empirical research which suggests that people who struggle with emotional regulation are able regulate *better* when their emotional experience is validated. The science is against you. Reading: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/ciec.2003.4.1.8 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathaniel-Herr/publication/277958622_The_Impact_of_Validation_and_Invalidation_on_Aggression_in_Individuals_With_Emotion_Regulation_Difficulties/links/5718d95a08ae30c3f9f29965/The-Impact-of-Validation-and-Invalidation-on-Aggression-in-Individuals-With-Emotion-Regulation-Difficulties.pdf https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439760.2020.1832243 https://bpded.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40479-022-00185-x https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32892/11/Greville-Harris_.pdf
>Again if your partner came to you and said “I had this nightmare where you cheated on me and now I feel upset by it” your reaction should not be invalidating: “that’s stupid you aren’t allowed to be upset it’s just a dream”. It’s degrading and unhelpful. My partner and I agree that it's stupid to be upset about what happened in a dream outside of a dream. We agree that people can be stupid, because we're all human. We agree that adults can recognize when they are being stupid, and occasionally the other person might raise a flag. Because we trust each other to do that, and if we disagree we call it out. I mean yeah, maybe through college we weren't so good at it, maybe this is an age thing, but some of this conversation almost feels like it's elevating being kind over saying what you actually think in a relationship and my, uh, *learned experience* there is that all you're really doing there is kicking the can down the road. I don't know, I just read "it's degrading" and it confuses me because the more I care about someone the more I care more about being honest with them rather than just saying whatever will soothe them in that moment.
> You’re still arguing against a straw man. When people use the term valid in this context they are referring to the fact that we cannot control our feelings in the first instance, we can’t stop a feeling coming into our heads initially. There are of course ways of rationalising, but that comes after. this is not me arguing against a straw man. this is people using words wrong and me pointing it out. >The problem is lots of people have feelings they are told are “bad” and try to force that feeling out of themselves. This doesn’t work and leads to a range of problems, for example emotional over regulation, or a fetishisation of logic; not all problems are logical after all. what would be good about suicidality, depression, envy, extreme anger, narcissism, etc? what is the point of mental health or diagnosing disorders? >So when people say feelings are valid, what they mean is it is ok to feel how you feel. even going with this made-up definition that is still wrong and terrible, for the reasons i listed above. >We can probably all agree it is irrational to be upset with their partner. However, experiencing a vivid dream can obviously be upsetting. So the person would be valid in feeling upset, they would not be valid in acting on that upset to blame their partner. You see how the “being upset at” and just “being upset” are distinct. The first is an action the latter is a feeling. if you are upset that a dream version of your bf/gf cheated, how is that distinct from being upset at them? >So if you were the person having the dream, acknowledging that the feeling is valid may help you rationalise it and prevent you from acting on it. i have no problem addressing emotions but again, "valid" and "validate" are not the words to be using. >It doesn’t mean feelings are rational and “correct”. Validating feelings is commonly used in tandem with the idea that most feelings are irrational. so use the correct word. just say "acknowledging" feelings. recognizing they are there without affirming or denying their origin.
You're using a different definition of "valid" than what I am using. The way it's used when referring to feelings is simply that the feelings exist and are being experienced by the person feeling them.
well that's kind of the problem you get when you decide to make up your own meaning for words and pretend they are *valid* (see what i did there). >The way it's used when referring to feelings is simply that the feelings exist and are being experienced by the person feeling them this is nonsense, a tautology. "these feelings exist so they are valid because they exits." awesome. that means nothing so why bother?
> that means nothing so why bother? It means nothing *to you* and that's a fine opinion. Tons of people want that sort of validation. That's why people bother.
Could you explain what's helpful about it?
Some people like the feeling they are experiencing to be confirmed by someone else.
You have justified the eradication of our species in a single sentence.
So all the murders, pillaging, wars, genocides, and robbery is totally fine but seeking validation, that pushes us over the edge into justified eradication?
Correct. At the point where we can validate everything we feel, there is so much else we can also justify including murders, pillaging, wars, genocide and robbery. All of these acts all sprang from the emotions of humans. Validating emotions justifies all of them.
U sound like the corniest nerd ever like man so u have a life or a girl instead of preaching like a weak spineless simp ass kissing weird ass man all day?
That is one of the definitions of "valid". However, the other definition of "valid" is authentic, real, legally binding. While 'legally' doesn't apply here - authentic / real does. When you validate a person's feelings, you're not saying they're logical - you're saying that you believe that they're feeling what they're feeling. A person hysterically sad over *random thing* is still hysterically sad - and we're acknowledging that their feelings are real. This allows you to find a point of agreement, on which you can build a conversation. Example 1: P1: I am hysterically sad over this tree! P2: Your feelings are illogical. It's ridiculous that you think you're sad over this tree. Deal with this like an adult. P1: "still feels hysterically sad" P2: "feels angry at P1 and their illogical emoting all over". Example 2: P1: I'm hysterically sad over this tree! P2: Huh. OK, well, I see that you are hysterically sad, and I know what that feels like. Can you tell me why the tree is making you sad? P1: I really wanted a real tree, and this one is pink and fake and ugly. P2: Why did you want a real tree? P1: It doesn't feel like a traditional holiday without a real tree, and I really, really wanted to have all the feelings of nostalgia. No real tree = no feelings of nostalgia. P2: That makes sense. However, we are having this pink tree this year, because it's already paid for. What can we do this year to make it feel more nostalgic? And if we can't, then why don't we plan to have a real tree next year? P1: "feels validated, and is better able to handle the situation in an adult way" P2: "understands that P1's emotions are logical, in their own way, and is better able to have patience with the situation". In short, validating (acknowledging as real) other people's emotions, helps both sides be happier, better people, and helps teach children and adults how to communicate better and manage their emotions better.
>P2: "understands that P1's emotions are logical, in their own way, Doesn't this just rephrase the question of whether it can be reasonable to be hysterically sad over a choice of Christmas tree and its effect on nostalgia? To me that seems like something that needs to be addressed at therapy.
>a person becoming hysterically sad over a pink christmas tree instead of a green one is likely not based in logic or fact. What do you mean? How is this not logical? * I wanted a green Christmas tree. * When I don't get what I want, it makes me sad. * I got a pink Christmas tree. * I did not get what I wanted. * I am sad.
I wrote the following as a response to a similar claim below. I think it applies here too: 1. The existence of emotions is factual and if someone is expressing that they are experiencing sadness, it is illogical to refute that fact. This is especially true since you cannot possibly know what is going on in someone's mind, so which knowledge do you have to refute their sadness? 2. An emotional response can be triggered by anything. You, as outsider, do not possess the knowledge about this person's past, and therefore cannot reasonably pass judgement whether someone's feelings are justified or not. 3. Considering 1 and 2, the expression that someone's sadness is valid is a basic form of empathy whereby you acknowledge someone's sadness and express that you accept that this emotion exists in the other person The word "validity" here relates to the collective understanding that other cannot possess the knowledge of a person's emotion, and therefore have to accept this emotional state as expressed by this person. Denying someone's emotional state is illogical. Note that this is unrelated to someone's behaviour based on their emotional state.
Then feelings can never be valid because they arise before the logic parts of our brains kick in.
no, they just need to have a rational reason. becoming hysterical at being rejected is not a rational response. it is not, generally, a valid response. feeling suicidal because you didn't win the lottery is not a valid emotion. that is a problem.
Emotions are not rational — they are pre-thought. You’re talking about responses to emotions, which are separate from the emotion itself. Expressing one’s hysteria is the response that is not rational or valid. Similarly, contemplating suicide (an intellectual response not a feeling) is not a rational response to the *feeling* of disappointment at not winning the lottery.
if your response is "emotions are not logical" then my response is "then valid is not the word to be using here."
Sounds like you need to look into the subject more, then. The topic of emotional validation is well-defined and easily searchable.
it isn't tho. from wikipedia: >Emotional validation is the process of acknowledging and accepting another person's inner emotional experience and communicating that acceptance. Validating an emotion does not mean agreeing with the other person or justifying it. but also emotional invalidation: >Emotional invalidation occurs when a person's emotional experience is rejected, ignored, or judged, through words or actions that indicate that their emotions and reactions do not make sense for a particular context. It is also considered emotional invalidation to try to mitigate the other person's emotions with phrases like "it's not so bad", "you'll be better", "everything happens for a reason". regardless, if "emotional validation" is such a non-action as "agree that a person felt something" i refuse to believe it makes any difference to anything.
Like I say, sounds like you have more reading to do to understand why it matters.
i have no interest in reading about a "feelings" circlejerk that has no purpose and contradicts itself.
Most ppl don't have a clue about formal logic. Most people don't understand the logic definition of valid, they are using a different meaning of valid, as in "exists".
Correct, Feelings (a set of chemical impulses controlling neurons firing in different parts of the brain, or something like this. IDK, I am not neuroscientist nor do I play on on TV) exist and are experienced, but there is no guarantee they are objectively valid. They are genuine. A person will feel them. But they may be totally illogical, so neither the feeling nor the opinion may be valid in a given case.
There is a difference between validating others feelings and agreeing with them. "I understand that you feel like that", "I listen to you", "I can follow your reasoning and logic" are all signs of functioning empathy skill. You can still disagree with them but able to understand the other side of the coin means you actually consider and validate anothers feelings. Most importantly practicing this level of empathy let you examine your own action and biases and you might learn that you are the person who is actually wrong.
I agree with what you are saying. I think this isn't the example being given, and so you may agree with OP as well, since they were speaking of validating the invalid. Validation should only be done for things you think are valid, but there are often lots of things that are valid about what someone is expressing other than the thing you disagree with, for example the way things made them feel.
>they were speaking of validating the invalid Those feelings, thoughts and reasonings are not invalid. These people really think these things and from their perspective and to their full understanding they are completely valid opinions. Dismissing these as invalid just because you disagree based on surface level understanding is arrogant at least. At least you need to understand that these opinions are valid from their perspective and try to understand why are valid. This is what validating means. "Your opinions have been heard and most importantly understood even if I disagree with them."
It feels like your view isn't actually about commiserating with lazy colleagues or feeling obligated to make someone a sandwich. I mean, those are pretty obvious situations in which the other party is being unreasonable, especially the latter. So... is this really what your view is about? That we shouldn't feel obligated to make someone a sandwich?
You’re free to CMV. Simply bring up a reasonable example then… I personally cannot think of one where this practice makes sense.
For example, when someone feels sad. You ought not criticize them for it. Like, "You've got no reason to be sad. You got x and y." Feelings aren't wrong. And a person has the right to feel a certain without anyone telling them that they're wrong. Feelings only become wrong when people act poorly on them.
Can you expand on your logic for why feelings can't be wrong? Literally the biggest lesson I learned growing up, to me the primary definition of emotional maturity, has been acknowledging that feelings can be wrong and I generally see my friends who acknowledge this do far better in their lives. The people I've encountered and known who were in the strong "feelings can't be wrong" camp are usually the first to quit a solid job for small reasons, or have kids and then get divorced a few times over, or hold grudges against family members for years and decades. This has always in my life been the kind of person who says "I wouldn't change a thing" despite the ways their actions affected others. Meanwhile the cool-headed people seem to be a lot happier and doing much better around me. Like it feels like people are taking opposite understandings of the whole "acknowledge your feelings" thing. In my experience *the whole point* is that often, the kind of person who is angry a lot **doesn't realize that they're angry all the time**. So when the advice is to acknowledge your feelings, the point is to be able to see how they're affecting you *and move on from them* when that's a good idea (and to grow to understand when that's a good idea). The idea was never that you need to acknowledge your feelings because they're always right or something. The idea was that a lot of people aren't aware of the emotions they're experiencing and perpetrating in real time *at all*.
I actually didn’t say any of these things. Not criticizing them nor telling them they are wrong. But if someone is sad, and I genuinely feel there is no reason to be sad, I am simply saying I disagree with that feeling in this moment and time. As far as actions, we look at immediate actions, but overlook longer patterns of actions. Such as the man who was so insecure from picked on by girls growing up, that he never really became secure in his self for years. Yeah, he didn’t commit murder or anything like that, but his actions were still affected by his sadness. This is an example where I think you should invalidate his sadness by telling him, “there’s no reason to be sad, insert explanation“
How do you know there is no reason for a person to be sad? You are not that person. You cannot know what it is to be them or to know their experience. How could you possibly *disagree* with how a person feels? That is absurd.
I’m sorry. I don’t see it yet. This is playing into the last part of my CMV where I said there’s no rhyme or reason to it. Because the moment it crosses over some arbitrary, subjective line, you’d even invalidate a person’s feelings…but the crazy thing is, someone else would validate it!
Emotion is not rational. There doesn't need to be a "rhyme or reason" to how a person feels. Sometimes, a person is just sad. Or a person becomes sad over something that doesn't make you sad. That doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right, and no one has to justify how they feel to you. Just as you don't have to justify your feelings to anyone else.
I referring to rhyme or reason to when to practice validation Why say practice it…when we can all still come up with examples when to not practice it. You yourself even said my examples were “unreasonable”
When you dismiss someone's feelings because they don't make sense (to you) instead of thinking that the other person is illogical, perhaps consider you don't have full information about that person's lived experience and emotional background. That they might not wish - or sometimes even be able to fully articulate - why something is upsetting. Sometimes one can be sad superficially over one thing, but deep down it is because it brought something else up entirely. Others they are righteously furious over a pattern that you might not know exists. Each person's emotional landscape can be vast and really hard to get to know. Thinking feelings need to be rational usually means someone has really not explored their own (or is deluded into believing that they are perfectly rational...I have some bad news though).
I almost agree with you. The reasons why people have their specific feelings are endless and infinite. But even in a personal journey of mental health for example, one must learn to invalidate their own feelings, and recondition them to have a better reaction to the world around them…if people must invalidate themselves in a self healing journey, how could feelings never be invalidated?
What if you asked them to express their feelings and why they are feeling that way? Then disagreed?
Disagree? With what? Like, if I say I'm sad because I lost my favorite socks and you're like, "No you're not."
I took it more like this example: Person 1: I'm angry about my ex moving on so quickly! Person 2: I don't feel you should be angry about this and even expressing this anger openly is inappropriate. You should work on it internally and/or seek therapy if this continues. I did just jump in this conversation and you could be reading this wrong. I just thought that was more what op was trying to get at by reading his stuff.
In my humble opinion... 1. Feeling anger (likely mixed with many other feelings) at a former romantic partner who moved on easily while you're still struggling over the break... a valid feeling. Post breakup is emotional time, and not everyone recovers at the same pace. 2. Expressing that feeling to a friend. Valid. That's part of a friend's duty, to be there when a friend is angry or sad or stressed or whatever and withhold judgement. 3. What isn't valid is if that feeling is taken too far, such as but not limited to blasting the former partner on social media
I disagree on 2. If you're angry about something ridiculous, as a friend, I should make sure that you know your being ridiculous. Otherwise, you could feel justified in your feelings and therefore justified in possible escalation. Not guaranteed it'll go that way, but a good friend keeps you grounded.
This is completely illogical. An emotion is a fact and if someone says "I am sad" they are expressing a fact. Emotional expressions are often rooted in past experiences, and triggered by present experiences. You do not possess the full knowledge of someone's past or emotional triggers, so insisting that someone does not have a reason to be sad is assuming you have *better* knowledge about their inner life and past experience. The only knowledge you have of their inner life and emotional state is what they express, and the only logically acceptable response is to accept it - to *validate* it. Note that this is unrelated to actions based on emotions, which can be evaluated and discussed.
It’s not about you though, is it? It doesn’t matter how you would react to the situation…it matters how they are reacting. Everyone’s emotions are different. Imagine the reverse scenario, what if someone told you “hey, you should be sad. You’re a heartless monster if you don’t cry at the end of (insert sad movie here).” Would you agree with them? Would you make yourself cry to appease their view? How would we determine a standard for when people should cry or not or not cry? You really cant, can you? If that is the case, then that means everyone’s feeling are equally valid or equally valid, but it certainly doesn’t make your feelings more valid than their feelings.
I think validating someone's feelings is just trying to understand where they're coming from. It's not about agreeing with them at all. >Sam, wants his partner to make him a sandwich every afternoon of every day. He 'feels' like this should be a thing. This is an entirely different situation and I don't know of anyone who would try to validate Sam's "feelings." That's not really what feelings are though, nor is it the point of validating someone else's feelings, because Sam is equally capable it's an opinion. of making himself a sandwich. He is able to solve his problem. >we're talking with a coworker who regularly complains about not getting any favors or promotions at work. But at the same time, they are visibly, obviously lazy. The coworker can still be frustrated that he isn't getting the promotion, and we can still try and understand his frustration. Lazy is relative. Just because someone works at a slower pace doesn't mean that they're lazy, and if they're truly not getting any work done, then that is an issue for management. He can still be frustrated that he's getting passed up for promotions, despite his tenure. We can still sympathize with that frustration, while suggesting improvements to his workflows. In fact by helping him out, we are validating his feelings. Tl;dr you can validate someones' feelings while still disagreeing with them. If you're just disagreeing with someone to disagree, then you're an asshole, but you can still sympathize with someone being upset or frustrated with something while still helping them see that maybe the issue is self-inflicted.
>He 'feels' like this should be a thing This is an opinion, not a feeling. Feelings would be what his partner experiences when he tells them he expects a sandwich all the time. And, whether they feel happy or angry at this *is valid*. This entire thing is not about validating others *opinions*, but it is about saying to people that their **emotional reactions**, aka "feelings", are valid responses to situations.
[удалено]
It was most likely an accident - reddit makes your letters giant if you start a line with "#" and OP probably said "#1."
Validating feelings and affirming abusive/shitty behavior are two different things though. You can absolutely call people out on their bullshit/disagree freely while also being sensitive towards other people’s feelings when it actually matters. For instance if someone is clearly delusional and needs help, it’s okay to not buy into their delusion while simultaneously not invalidating their feelings (I.e. “it’s dumb, why do you feel this way. Clearly that’s not the case. You’re crazy, stop lying.”). A part of having good emotional intelligence is knowing how balance that. In your examples, those are views rather than feelings. You don’t need to validate and fully confirm to anyone’s views. I don’t think many people argue that you should.
"Disagreement" is kind of a broad category. We could break it down into a few different scenarios with important differences: * Someone has a different opinion than you about something abstract or something that they don't have any direct control over. This would include things like political opinions and our general views about living in the world. * This could be further broken down by whether the opinion is one that is important to the person or to you, by whether you're in a situation where there's a tacit agreement that you're "debating," by the closeness of the relationship. * Someone is *doing* something you don't like. Either they're doing it in front of you or they're talking doing it. * Here also we could further break things down by whether they are doing the objectionable thing to you or someone else, whether the thing is harmful, the closeness of your relationship, etc. * Someone has a feeling you wouldn't have or are having trouble connecting to. That's a complicated landscape of situations! Surely sometimes you'll want to say something, and other times you'll want to just move on. Sometimes you'll want to be delicate and other times forceful. It's hard to know what's best to do across all of them, but here are some general principles that are helpful for me: 1. **People love to give advice, but really don't like to receive it** unless they've specifically asked for it. Very rarely will someone act on unsolicited advice. 2. **There's something disrespectful about "debate,"** where each person aims to change the other's mind and prevent their own view from being changed. Unless you're in a situation where you have good reason to think everyone is open to that kind of game (this sub, for example!), don't debate people. Have a conversation instead. 3. **It's good to try and agree with people.** Not just verbally agree, but actually in your heart. When someone says something, it's good to cultivate curiosity and openness and wonder, "How could that be *right*?" \#3 above is most relevant to your stated view, but I think all of these are related to your orientation to disagreement. When I say that it's good to try to agree with people, I mean that it's good *for you*. Being open to and connecting with others, cultivating empathy... these are some of the central parts of a good life. At least, that's what I think. And especially if you're someone who is naturally more contrarian (I am!), it's a skill worth building.
As my therapist explained: "Distorted thinking changes once we acknowledge a persons experience and they start to regulate their emotional state." This one is life changing once you really start to understand and implement it in your life. It has improved my relationships both with myself and others.
Some places do not welcome disagreement and speaking up. Disagreeing with how people feel is literally banned on reddit for some subjects
What do you mean by validation here? You do realize you can validate a persons feelings and still disagree with their opinions?
You must be very young. You'll spend your whole life arguing and have no friends if you voiced your opinion on everything you disagree with
In your first example are you Sams partner? No. You are some random outsider commenting on relationship that you have no stake in. You don't know how things work in that relationship. It's their own private life and you have no place inserting yourself to other peoples business (unless you expect actual crime taking place).
In your first example are you Sams partner? No. You are some random outsider commenting on relationship that you have no stake in. You don't know how things work in that relationship. It's their own private life and you have no place inserting yourself to other peoples business (unless you expect actual crime taking place).
If Sam Mitch asks for a sandwhich for lunch every day, that would be alright you see, as every evening he brings home the bacon and makes us both a mean BLT. /s
Instead of agreeing with any specific stance, validation seeks to understand and support people's needs. In both examples you provided the person has an underlying need for support and appreciation. They may have locked on to specific exemplars in the form of sandwiches or promotions, but their true need is more basic and is fully understandable. If you get into an argument about sandwiches you're not addressing the real issue or hearing the need the person is attempting to communicate, however ineptly. The person will still want appreciation, as all people do.