It's not deceptive at all -- and if it makes you feel better, it still works if you explicitly declare (preferably at a different time so as not to exacerbate t

It's not deceptive at all -- and if it makes you feel better, it still works if you explicitly declare (preferably at a different time so as not to exacerbate their emotionally-triggered state) that you plan to use this technique. You aren't saying "you're right to feel this way given the state of the world." You are saying "you're right to feel this way, given your specific priors." (And then, now that you are On Their Side, you go on to help them reevaluate the priors.) The natural instinct for many of us is to start by disproving the other person's priors in order to demonstrate that their anxiety is unnecessary in hopes of reducing it. What I'm saying is that if you start by validating the emotional experience given their priors, you give their brain the space to back off from its fight-or-flight state and get into a position where it's capable of listening to your rational argument about why the alleged risk is likely overblown. You don't have to sacrifice any truth value in doing this (instead of saying: "you're wrong to feel this way because your assumption is wrong", you are effectively saying "you are right to feel this way given your assumptions ... but btw, have you taken a hard look at those assumptions lately? Let's do that."). You're also framing it in a much more collaborative way - not "you are wrong and I will prove it and WIN", but "look our mutual goal is figuring out what Reality looks like, so let me stand over here with you and let's look at it together and try to figure out what we can see." I'm making this point again because I myself struggled for years with this concept. I care about truth; honesty is important, etc. But if your goal is to get more people to see Reality As It Is, consider a strategy that starts by getting their mind into a more rational state, rather than assuming that state already exists.